/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200615.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 15, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 119

                            Headlines

3232 HOTEL: Breeze Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
3M CO: Bair Hagger(TM) Suit Ongoing in Ontario
3M CO: Bid to Dismiss Amended Delaware Class Complaint Pending
3M CO: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Ohio Suit to AFFF MDL
4PLAY GENTLEMAN'S: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Wade Suit Says

626 HOLDINGS: Gabel Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
77 HUDSON CONDO: Breeze Sues in New Jersey Over Violation of ADA
ADM INVESTOR: Sold Customer Data, Kumaran Alleges
AEROWAYS STAFFING: Alea Seeks Regular and OT Wages Under FLSA
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Monopolizes Aligner Market, Simon Suit Alleges

ALOHA POOL: Dunsavage Action Granted Collective Status
AMPD GROUP: Washington Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Securities Suit
APPLIED DATA: Derosier Sues in Florida Over Illegal Online Loans
ARCH INSURANCE: Rossi Seeks to Recover Loss for Unused Ski Passes

BAIDU INC: Gross Law Announces Filing of Class Action
BALBOA THRIFT: Camarillo Sues Over Background Check
BLOCK.ONE: Crypto Assets Sues Over Misleading Reports
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Pa. Securities Class Suit
BURMA SUPERSTAR: Employees Win $1.3MM Settlement in Class Suit

CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Refuses to Pay Insureds, Stone Soup Claims
CNC OILFIELD: Paredes Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
COLONY CAPITAL: Schall Law Announces Filing of Class Action
CONN'S INC: Gross Law Announces Filing of Class Action

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Court Dismisses O’Connell Insurance Suit
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Ballard et al Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces Crook FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. California
CROWN ASSET: Bey Calls Debt Collection Lawsuit "Deceptive"
CRYSTAL CRUISES: Breier Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under PAGA

CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Reminds of July 20 Deadline
DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suits Challenge BorgWarner Merger
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Jones Sues in N.D. Georgia Over FDCPA Violation
EI DU PONT: Continues to Defend PFAS-Related Class Suit in Ohio
EI DU PONT: Continues to Defend PFOA-Related Class Suit in NY

EI DU PONT: Various Drinking Water Contamination Suit Underway
ENTERPRISE LEASING: Faces Benson Class Suit in M.D. Florida
EON CLINICS: Underpays & Misclassifies Staff, Ruttenberg et al Say
EVENFLO COMPANY: Alston Suit Moved From D.S.C. to Massachusetts
EVENFLO COMPANY: Sapeika Suit Moved From Ohio to Massachusetts

EVENTBRITE INC: Refuses to Refund Nixed Event Tickets, Snow Says
FCA US: Davis et al. Sue Over Oil Consumption Defect in Cars
FCA US: Won't Honor Powertrain Warranty, Grundy et al. Allege
FEDERAL WARRANTY: Fritz Sues Over Sale of Lowe's Protection Plans
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Saber FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
FLORIDA SOUTHERN: Salerno Suit Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
FOLGERS COFFEE: Marcia Sorin Files Class Suit in E.D. Florida
FORSTER & GARBUS: Rosenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
FRANCISCO VALADEZ: Moshan-Martinez Seeks Wages for Farm Workers

FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: Jaramillo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Ferreira Class Suit
GLOBAL SERVICED: Breeze Sues in New Jersey Alleging ADA Violation
GO FISH CARGO: Ruiz Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
GOTHIC GROUNDS: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code

GRAND CANYON: Gross Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
GRAND CANYON: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
GRAND CANYON: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
GROUPON INC: Howard G. Smith Notes of June 29 Plaintiff Deadline
GSX TECHEDU: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit

HAIBAN INN LLC: Breeze Sues in New Jersey Alleging ADA Violation
HAIN CELESTIAL: Falsely Markets Vanilla Oat Drinks, Sajnani Says
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Howard G. Smith Notes of July 6 Deadline
HAMILTON BEACH: Faces Chen Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
HEALTH PLAN: Thuo Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

HKA ENTERPRISES: Sullivan Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ISCO INDUSTRIES: Best et al. Sue Over ESOP Losses
JPMORGAN CHASE: Approval of Amended Settlement Challenged
JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Litigation Ongoing
JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Suits over Precious Metals Futures

JPMORGAN CHASE: To Settle FX Indirect Purchasers' Suit for $10MM
KEYCORP: Faces Stark ERISA Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Faces Zhu FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
LANNETT CO: Securities Suit over Drug Pricing Underway in E.D. Pa.
LIFELABS INC: 2 Different Approaches to Class Action Carriage Bids

LOS ANGELES, CA: BLM LA Files Civil Rights Suit in C.D. Calif.
LYFT INC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Hinson Suit Says
M STREET: Fenwick Seeks Proper Pay for Restaurant Servers
MACON INC: Fails to Pay Overtime for Welders, Hughes Claims
MDL 2950: Transfer of 12 PPP Agent Fees Suits to N.D. Ga. Sought

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces Warsame Suit Over Denied Wages
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Myhre Suit Over Sale of Dicamba Herbicide
MONTHLY AUTO: Nelson Sues Over Aggressive Unsolicited Marketing
NATIONAL CREDIT: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
NUSR-ET STEAKHOUSE: Wins Summary Judgment in Suit Over Servers Tips

OKLAHOMA: Knox Wants Refund of Fees After COVID-19 School Closure
ONE WIRELESS: Teplitsky Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
OSA CONSULTING GROUP: Faces Parker FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida
PARQUE TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Mismarketed Condos
PARQUE TOWERS: Unlawfully Markets Condo Units, Isaacoff Claims

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Appeal from Dismissal of Sgarlata Suit Underway
PFIZER INC: Consolidated Class Suit v. Array BioPharma Ongoing
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defends EpiPen Antitrust Class Suits
PFIZER INC: Settlement in Hormone Therapy Suit Wins Initial Okay
PHOENIX TREE: Howard G. Smith Notes of June 26 Plaintiff Deadline

PINNACLE ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Walker Says
PRIMERO AUTO: Riquenes Seeks Regular & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
PRINCESS CRUISE: Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuits Over COVID Fears
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Metzner Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
R & B CORPORATION: Faces Turner FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. Virginia

REVENUE MANAGEMENT: Faces Druschel Suit Over Telemarketing Acts
ROSSCO CRANE: Powers Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RYDER SYSTEM: Gross Law Announces Filing of Class Action
RYDER SYSTEM: Schall Law Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Ponsa-Rabell Suit Recommended

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merit Discovery in Deka Suit Still Stayed
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Unit Faces Ruf-Tepper Suit
SCWORX CORP: Howard G. Smith Notes of June 29 Plaintiff Deadline
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement With ADR Purchasers
SIX FLAGS GREAT ADVENTURE: Forbes Files Suit in D. New Jersey

SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Blackmore Suit Moved From N.D. Iowa to W.D. Mo.
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Buford Suit Moved From Arkansas to W.D. Missouri
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Mabie Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to W.D. Missouri
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Zornes Suit Moved From Kansas to W.D. Missouri
STATE FARM: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Excessive Cost of Insurance

STUART SUPREME: Calderon Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
STUDIO M BAR: Underpays Staff, Duan and Su Allege
SUNRISE COMMUNICATIONS: Floyd Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
TELECOM HOME: Shortman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
TENNESSEE: Court Directs Appointment of Inmates' Counsel

TERMINIX INT'L: Underpays Commercial Technicians, Lowe Claims
TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Lidoderm Suit in Mississippi Pending
TEVA PHARMA: Certification Proceeding in Lamictal(R) Suit Ongoing
TEVA PHARMA: Niaspan Indirect Buyers' Bid for Class Status Pending
TEVA PHARMA: Settlement in Provigil(R) Suit Awaits Court OK

TOWER RESEARCH: Choi Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
TRANS UNION: Faces Meeks Suit in Oregon Alleging FCRA Violation
TRAVEL NURSE: Underpays Heathcare Staff, Lehmkuhl Claims
TROPICANA ATLANTIC: Pasquale Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
U.S. OIL FUND: Glancy Prongay Probing Securities Violations

UNIFIN INC: Kim Sues in N.D. Illinois Alleging FDCPA Violation
UNITED STATES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in Alexander Suit
VALLEY FORGE: Faces Noskenda Insurance Suit in W.D. Washington
VIACOMCBS INC: Bid to Dismiss CalPERS Suit Filed
VIACOMCBS INC: Bucks County Fund and IUOE to Lead CBS Merger Suit

VIACOMCBS INC: Construction Laborers Pension Trust Suit Ongoing
WALMART INC: Pickens Sues Over Unsolicited & Misguided Phone Calls
WASTE PRO: Blandon Seeks to Conditionally Certify Drivers Class
WELLS FARGO: Intentionally Delays PPP Loans, Karen's Custom Says
WELLS FARGO: Portnoy Law Firm Notes of Class Action

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Nebraska Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Ongoing
WESCO AIRCRAFT: Second Amended Gray Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
WILHELMINA MODELS: Class Action a Bellwether for Other Industries
WILLIS TOWERS: Halper Sadeh Announces Shareholder Class Action
WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Sells Defective Supplements, Seiger Says


                            *********

3232 HOTEL: Breeze Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3232 Hotel LLC. The
case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated v. 3232 Hotel LLC, a New York limited
liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-04270 (S.D.N.Y., June 4,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

3232 Hotel is a luxury boutique hotel located in the heart of New
York City and provides a relaxed and entertaining environment for
business travelers, artists, and locals alike.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik Mathew Bashiam, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 279-1554
          Fax: (516) 213-0339
          Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


3M CO: Bair Hagger(TM) Suit Ongoing in Ontario
----------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself
against a putative class action related to the company's Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system, pending before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian
residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular,
and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections
due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system. The
representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive damages)
under Canadian law based on theories similar to those asserted in
the  multi-district litigation (MDL).

No liability has been recorded for the Bair Hugger(TM) litigation
because the Company believes that any such liability is not
probable and estimable at this time.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Bid to Dismiss Amended Delaware Class Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the motion seeking dismissal of the
amended class action complaint in Delaware is pending.

In Delaware, 3M is defending one putative class action brought by
individuals alleging Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFAS) contamination of
their water supply resulting from the operations of local metal
plating facilities. Plaintiffs allege that 3M supplied PFAS to the
metal plating facilities. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (DuPont),
Chemours, and the metal platers have also been named as defendants.


This case has been removed from state court to federal court, and
plaintiffs have withdrawn its motion to remand to state court and
filed an amended complaint. 3M has filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Ohio Suit to AFFF MDL
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that a trial court has denied 3M's motion to
transfer the Ohio suit to the Aqueous Film Forming Foam
multi-district litigation (AFFF MDL).

In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont de
Nemours, Inc. (DuPont) and Chemours, were named in a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
brought by the named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFAS) chemicals through his use of
firefighting foam, purporting to represent a putative class of all
U.S. individuals with detectable levels of PFAS in their blood.

The plaintiff brings claims for negligence, battery, and conspiracy
and seeks injunctive relief, including an order "establishing an
independent panel of scientists" to evaluate PFAS.

3M and other entities jointly filed a motion to dismiss in February
2019. In September 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss. In February 2020, the court denied 3M's motion to transfer
the case to the AFFF MDL.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


4PLAY GENTLEMAN'S: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Wade Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Wade, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. 4PLAY GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, d/b/a 4PLAY GENTLEMAN'S
CLUB, and OLIVER BENDIG, Case No. 2:20-cv-05029 (C.D. Cal., June 5,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have misclassified
4Play's exotic dancers as independent contractors rather than
employees and, in so doing, have violated various provisions of
California and federal law, including the FLSA, for failure to pay
them minimum wage and overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 a week, and for requiring dancers to pay fees and
tip-outs, which constitute unlawful kick-backs under the FLSA; for
failure to pay minimum wage; for failure to provide itemized wage
statements; by requiring dancers to pay various expenses that
should have been borne by the employer; and for failure to allow
dancers to retain all gratuities paid by customers.

The Plaintiff has worked as an exotic dancer at 4Play Gentlemen's
Club since February 2015.

4Play Gentlemen's Club is an establishment where live topless,
semi-nude or nude dance entertainment is presented to adult members
of the general public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anne Kramer, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Email: akramer@llrlaw.com


626 HOLDINGS: Gabel Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY GABEL v. 626 HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, MICHAEL FISCHER, individually, and PHILIP REVIEN,
individually  Case No. 9:20-cv-80831-XXXX (May 25, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
seeking to recover all overtime wages that the Defendants refused
to pay the Plaintiff and others during their employment under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants refused to pay overtime
compensation at the federally mandated rate of time-and-one-half
for work exceeding 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from April 1, 2019, until
October 7, 2019. The Plaintiff performed non-exempt work for the
Defendants as a dispatcher.

Defendant 626 is medical technology maintenance company that has
been operating in the state of Florida since at least 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Melissa Scott, Esq.
          Jake Blumstein, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com


77 HUDSON CONDO: Breeze Sues in New Jersey Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 77 HUDSON CONDO ASSN.
The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf of himself, and
all others similarly situated v. 77 HUDSON CONDO ASSN, doing
business as: UBliss Suites at 70 Greene, Case No. 2:20-cv-06913
(D.N.J., June 5, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

UBliss Suites offers luxury short term apartment rentals to
leisure, business and group travelers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik Mathew Bashiam, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 279-1554
          Fax: (516) 213-0339
          Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


ADM INVESTOR: Sold Customer Data, Kumaran Alleges
-------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA SIVA KUMARAN, CUSTOMERS 1-100, CTA'S 1-100, NEFERTITI RISK
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03873-UA (S.D.N.Y.., May 18, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common law fraud, fraud
and deceptive business practices, fraudulent inducement of
contract, aiding and abetting in fraud, civil conspiracy,
misappropriation of trade secrets, interference in economic
advantage, unjust enrichment, recission, breach of contract, gross
negligence, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly-situated individuals who
opened accounts at the Defendant during the period September 2014
until present date.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant,
together with the owners, employees, and affiliates of the
disbarred futures clearing merchant Vision Financial Markets, LLC,
engaged in a fraudulent scheme whereby, the Defendant, in exchange
for financial benefits, sold and/or distributed and gave fully
disclosed access to multiple of their confidential customers' and
commodity trading advisors' (CTA) private futures account data,
details of the inner workings of their trading positions, as well
as their personal private data, without the customers' knowledge,
permission and consent to Vision's owners, employees, and
affiliates.

Further the scheme solicits millions of dollars of unauthorized
fees and charges, estimated to total over $50 million, in violation
of the Commodities Exchange Act (which are expressly not authorized
by the customer or CTA) to be deducted in cash from ADMIS accounts
to be used to make personal payments to Vision owners and
affiliates, across interstate lines in Stamford Connecticut, and
other financial benefits, which are fraudulently concealed from
customers and CTA's prior to account opening.

As a result of the Defendant's illegal conduct, the Plaintiffs and
Class members have suffered damages that include without
limitation, irreparable harm in loss of their confidential and
trade secrets, financial losses in their trading accounts,
depletion and losses in CTA's performance records, damages to their
good will and other impacts to their CTA careers, reductions to the
financial trading account balances, financial losses to their
property, livelihoods and investments in the futures industry, as
well as other significant damages.

Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC was a minority women-owned
small business and sole proprietor located in New York.

ADM Investor Services, Inc. is a Futures Clearing Merchant located
at 141 W Jackson Blvd, Suite 2100a Chicago, Illinois. It is wholly
owned by Archer Daniel Midland. [BN]

AEROWAYS STAFFING: Alea Seeks Regular and OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAN ALEJO ALEA, and other similarly situated individuals v.
AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC., PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP.,
ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP., ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and
JANETTE SUAREZ, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-22168-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., May 25, 2020), seeks to recover damages for unpaid regular
and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he and all other current and former
employees similarly situated were not paid minimum wages, or/and
worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after
May 2017, without being compensated pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiff is employed as a janitor by the Defendants from
December 25, 2009, through March 25, 2020, or more than 10 years.

Aeroways offers staffing services. Professional Ocean is an
aircraft cleaning company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          PALMA LAW GROUP
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Monopolizes Aligner Market, Simon Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon and Simon, PC d/b/a City Smiles, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case
No. 5:20-cv-03754 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2020), is an antitrust
lawsuit arising from Align's acquisition and maintenance of
monopoly power in the markets for two products:

   (1) custom-manufactured, transparent, removable dental
       aligners made from clear plastic (the Defendant's product
       is called "Invisalign", and the category of product is
       generally called "Aligners"); and

   (2) hand-held digital intraoral scanners used to generate
       scans to order Aligners (Defendant's product is called
       "iTero", and the category of product is generally called
       "Scanners").

According to the complaint, Align has dominated the Aligner market
for decades with its Invisalign brand Aligners. Align controls
approximately 90 percent of the market for Aligners and earns well
over a billion dollars a year selling Invisalign, with durable
profit margins above 75 percent. Align has also come to dominate
the market for Scanners with its iTero product, controlling
approximately 80 percent of the market and earning hundreds of
millions of dollars a year selling iTero, with profit margins above
60 percent. Align's only real competitor in the Scanner market is
3Shape, who sells the Trios Scanner that, like iTero, is designed
for ordering Aligners.

Align's monopoly started to come under threat in 2017 due to the
expiration of several of its key patents. Having enjoyed many years
operating without "the outside influence of other competitors
coming in," and having raised investors' expectations of continued
high revenues and profit margins, Align now faced competition in
the Aligner market. Align could have responded to that competition
by lowering prices or spending more money on research and
development to improve the quality of its own Aligners, but instead
responded to the threat of competition with a multifaceted
anticompetitive scheme to monopolize both the Scanner and Aligner
markets ("Scheme"), the Plaintiff alleges.

According to the complaint, the Scheme includes: (1) multiyear
exclusive dealing contracts with two of the largest dental service
organizations ("DSO") that have the effect of preventing Dental
Practices that are DSO members from dealing with Align's rivals in
both the Scanner and Aligner markets, (2) the "Fusion Program,"
which bundled iTero with sales of Invisalign orders, and, thereby,
prevented Dental Practices from ordering either Aligners or
Scanners from Align's rivals, (3) the "Advantage Program," which
effectively forces Dental Practices to use iTero to obtain non
penalty prices for Invisalign that they need to offer patients a
competitive price for Aligner treatments, (4) the design of iTero
and Invisalign such that the products operate as a de facto
integrated product bundle that penalizes Dental Practices who
utilize competing products, and (5) the unilateral termination of
Align's longstanding and profitable agreement with 3Shape that
allowed the Trios Scanner to be used to order Invisalign
("Interoperability Agreement")--a decision that would have been
economically irrational but for the anticompetitive effects of that
termination.

The essence of this scheme was that Align was able to use its
monopoly power in the Aligner market to drive 3Shape out of the
Scanner market, and then to use its increased monopoly power in the
Scanner market to maintain its monopoly power in the Aligner
market, the Plaintiff contends. In this way, Align's ability to
leverage both its Scanner and Aligner monopolies to prevent
competition in both markets has enabled it to maintain or increase
its monopoly power in both markets and to charge supracompetitive
prices for both its Aligners and its Scanners. The Plaintiff seeks
treble damages and injunctive relief, demanding a trial by jury of
all issues so triable, under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and
Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.

Simon and Simon, PC, doing business as City Smiles, is a Dental
Practice located in Chicago, Illinois, that performs scans for
Invisalign using the iTero Scanner and purchased Invisalign
Aligners from the Defendant.

Align Technology, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with its
headquarters in San Jose, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                 swilliams@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          Email: ecramer@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-559-9745
          Email: dwalker@bm.net

               - and -

          John Radice, Esq.
          Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          475 Wall Street
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (646) 245-8502
          Fax: (609) 385-0745
          Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
                 drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com


ALOHA POOL: Dunsavage Action Granted Collective Status
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL DUNSAVAGE, v. ALOHA
POOL SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 0:19-cv-62509-RS (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify
      collective action and facilitate notice to potential class
      members;

   2. conditionally certifying a collective action consisting
      of:

      "all non-exempt salaried employees who worked for
      Defendants as Pool Technicians, anywhere in Florida, from
      October 8, 2016, through the present and who worked 40 or
      more hours in one or more workweeks, and were not paid
      time and one-half overtime compensation for their overtime
      hours worked";

   3. directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs'
      counsel on  or before May 14, 2020 with a list containing
      class members' names, email addresses, home addresses and
      last known telephone numbers (the "Opt-In List");

   4. directing the Plaintiffs to mail, email, and/or text
      message such Notices to the members of the Opt-in List
      within seven days of receiving the list and a second time
      30 days after, but only to those class members who have
      not joined at that time;

   5. scheduling the time for opting into this action at 60 days
      from the date the Notices are mailed. In order to be
      timely, consent forms must be signed by the Opt-in, dated,
      and filed with the Court by the 60th day after notice is
      sent. Putative class members may also execute their
      consent forms online through an electronic signature
      service.;

   6. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel within two days of
      sending out notice, to file with the Court and serve on
      Defendant's counsel a Certification as to the date on
      which Notice was mailed to the individuals on the Opt-In
      List; and

   7. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel within seven days of
      receiving a signed opt-in consent form, to provide a copy
      of the consent form to Defendant's counsel.

The Court finds that there is a reasonable basis for conditional
certification of a collective action on behalf of the asserted
class of similarly employees.

The Court said, "According to the allegations in the complaint and
the submitted declarations, the Defendants employed similarly
situated non-exempt salary paid employees in the position of Pool
Technician, who were paid in the same way, who performed the exact
or substantially similar duties, who worked substantial overtime
hours, and who were subjected to Defendants' alleged policy of not
paying full and proper overtime compensation as required by the
FLSA. Three Plaintiffs have opted in already prior to any notice
given. As such, the Plaintiffs' submissions have met the standard
at stage 1 to warrant conditional certification of an FLSA
collective action, and the Defendants' Response in opposition fails
to defeat the arguments and evidence raised in the Plaintiff's
Motion. The Plaintiffs have also filed proposed Notice and Consent
Forms. Court-authorized notices in a class action context helps to
prevent 'misleading communications,' and ensures that the notice is
'timely, accurate, and informative.'"

The Court finds that the proposed notices are appropriate.

The action alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime
pursuant to the FLSA.

The Defendants own and operate a swimming pool and hot tub service
company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[CC]

AMPD GROUP: Washington Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelcie Washington and Kiera Washington, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. AMPD GROUP, LLC; AMPD HOLDINGS,
LLC; AMPD MYRTLE, LLC; AMPD102, LLC; AMPD 231, LLC; AMPD 317, LLC;
ADAM DESIMONE, MICHAEL DESIMONE, PATRICK DESIMONE, and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No. 2:20-cv-00830-MRH (W.D. Pa., June 4,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for their violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvanian Minimum Wage Act, and
the Wage Payment and Collection Law by depriving the Plaintiffs of
minimum wages.

The lawsuit also seeks to satisfy the notice requirement of the tip
credit provision of the FLSA and PA State laws.

Due to the Defendants' unlawful failure to properly inform Tipped
Employees of its intention to utilize a "tip credit," as well as
its other violations of the tip credit provisions, the Defendants
have improperly applied a "tip credit" against the wages paid to
the Plaintiffs, according to the complaint. The result of the
Defendants' conduct is that Tipped Employees were paid less than
the mandated minimum wage. In addition, the Plaintiffs also worked
in excess of 40 hours per week; however, when they did so, the
Defendants paid them the wrong overtime rate. As a result, the
Plaintiffs were illegally undercompensated for their work.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as "servers" at
their Ten Penny restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate and/or otherwise managed at least 12
restaurants and bars.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          James P. McGraw, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                 eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
                 jmcgraw@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. GRay, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Phone: 610-822-3700
          Facsimile: 610-822-3800
          Email: gwells@cwglaw.com
                 rgray@cwglaw.com


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and
Pension Funds, and Plaintiffs Sharon Albano, et al., filed an
appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Opinion entered on
April 20, 2020, in the lawsuit entitled In re AMTRUST FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-01545-LAK,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring this putative securities class action against AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. (AmTrust), current and former officers and
directors, its former auditor, and certain underwriters of its
securities. They claim that certain public filings and statements
made by defendants contain misstatements of material facts in
violation of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act against AmTrust, the Officer Defendants, Director
Defendants, the Underwriter Defendants, and defendant BDO. Their
claims focus on accounting issues and material weaknesses that
AmTrust identified in 2016 and 2017, and corrected in the
restatement. As against AmTrust, the Officer Defendants, and BDO,
plaintiffs assert theories of both negligence and fraud.

The appellate case is captioned as In re AMTRUST FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 20-1643, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Lead Plaintiff New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and
Pension Funds is represented by:

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Avital Orly Malina, Esq.
          Mark Tamerlane Millkey, Esq.
          Robert Daniel Gerson, Esq.
          William John Geddish, Esq.
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.    
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367−7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367−1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  amalina@rgrdlaw.com
                  mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com
                  rgerson@rgrdlaw.com
                  wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiffs Sharon Albano, Jupiter Capital Management, Irving
Lichtman Revocable Living Trust, and Stanley Newmark are
represented by:

          Avital Orly Malina, Esq.
          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367−7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367−1173
          E-mail: amalina@rgrdlaw.com
                  drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661−1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661−8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Defendant AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., is represented by:

          Amy Rublin Mayer, Esq.
          Mark Adam Kirsch, Esq.
          Akiva Shapiro, Esq.
          Lawrence Jay Zweifach, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351−3868
          E-mail: amayer@gibsondunn.com
                  mkirsch@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          George Anthony Borden, Esq.
          Steven M.. Farina, Esq.
          Amanda M. MacDonald, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434−5563
          Facsimile: (202) 434−5029
          E-mail: gborden@wc.com
                  sfarina@wc.com
                  amacdonald@wc.com

               - and -

          Caitlin Joan Halligan, Esq.
          SELENDY & GAY PLLC
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 390−9000
          E-mail: challigan@gibsondunn.com


APPLIED DATA: Derosier Sues in Florida Over Illegal Online Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN DEROSIER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. APPLIED DATA FINANCE, LLC, d/b/a PERSONIFY FINANCIAL,
Case No. CACE-20-008496 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 22, 2020), is
brought under the Florida Consumer Finance Act and the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act against the Defendant for its
alleged illegal online loans.

According to the complaint, the Defendant "offers personal loans
from $1,000 to $ 10,000 with terms of 12, 24 or 36 months, and
biweekly, semimonthly or monthly payment schedules." The problem is
that these online loans it solicited, funded, collected, and
serviced for Florida consumers like the Plaintiff and Class
Members, are entirely illegal here, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's loans represent
deceptive and usurious loans and flat-out illegitimate debts with
real interest rates up to 179.99%, when all required payments are
taken into account-well above the Florida interest rate ceiling of
18%, making the loans entirely unenforceable in this state.

The Plaintiff seeks to redress the harm the Defendant caused and
seeks forfeiture of interest and statutory damages for the
Defendant's unlawful conduct.

Applied Data operates as a financial services firm. The Company
offers loans and financing solutions to consumers. Applied Data
Finance serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2 150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 595-6060
          Facsimile: (954) 989-778 1
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
                  mperez@zpllp.com
                  kslaven@zpllp.com
                  rnfistos@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway I, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 822-3446
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com
                  karen@cloorg.com
                  darren@cloorg.com


ARCH INSURANCE: Rossi Seeks to Recover Loss for Unused Ski Passes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK W. ROSSI, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00411-BCW
(W.D. Mo., May 22, 2020), is brought for breach of contract to
recover amounts for the loss of use of ski passes insured by Arch.

The Plaintiff's claims and those of the proposed class are
supported by the written provisions of the ski pass insurance they
purchased from Arch, which are materially the same for all members
of the proposed class, according to the complaint. The class
members purchased from Arch ski pass insurance that covers the cost
of each insured ski pass against the risk of not being able to use
the pass due to the occurrence of a covered event. Arch promised to
reimburse the Plaintiff and members of the proposed class for the
cost of their ski passes.

The Plaintiff contends that despite unambiguous language in the
insuring agreement, which is fully integrated, Arch breached its
promises by failing to pay him and proposed class members when they
were prevented from using their ski passes because of the closure
of ski resorts due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Arch has caused
material harm to him and the proposed class by improperly failing
to make payment, he adds. He also seeks to recover compensatory
damages, as well as declaratory relief.

The Plaintiff purchased an Ikon Pass providing him access during
the 2019/2020 ski season to mountain resorts in the Ikon network.
The Plaintiff also purchased ski pass insurance from Arch on his
2019/2020 Ikon Pass.

Arch provides ski pass insurance whereby it promises its insureds
coverage against loss of use of their ski passes.

Alterra sells "Ikon Passes" promising access to skiing and
snowboarding at resorts it owns and operates as well as to iconic
"partnership resorts", such as Aspen, which are independently owned
and operated. Consumers can purchase Ikon Passes as season or
multi-day passes for prices generally up to $999, depending on the
type of pass.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Stephen R. Mille, Esq.
          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: 816 561-6500
          Facsimile: 816 561-6501
          E-mail: smiller@millerschirger.com
                  jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-714-7100
          Facsimile: 816-714-7101
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com


BAIDU INC: Gross Law Announces Filing of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm notified
of a class action filed against publicly traded Baidu, Inc. (BIDU).


Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Baidu, Inc. (BIDU)
Investors Affected: March 16, 2019 - April 7, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Baidu, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Baidu's feed services were not in compliance
with applicable Chinese regulatory standards; (ii) the foregoing
noncompliance subjected the Company to a heightened risk of
regulatory enforcement, including the removal or suspension of
certain of Baidu's services and products; (iii) accordingly, the
Company's revenues derived from online marketing services were
unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/baidu-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7184&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
         Tel: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
[GN]



BALBOA THRIFT: Camarillo Sues Over Background Check
---------------------------------------------------
The case, VERONICA CAMARILLO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALBOA THRIFT AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00913-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal.,
May 15, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged negligent
noncompliance of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff owed a financial obligation
to Defendant by obtaining an automobile loan in or around February
2015, but surrendered her automobile to close her account with
Defendant at some point to July 29, 2019.

However, Defendant inquired Plaintiff's Experian credit report on
July 29, 2019 without a permissible purpose and without Plaintiff's
consent, thereby illegally accessing Plaintiff's private and
confidential information.

The complaint contends that Plaintiff was harmed and damaged by the
illegal and deceptive practices of Defendant by submitting an
unauthorized consumer report inquiry.

Plaintiff seeks recovery of actual and statutory damages, punitive
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs.

Balboa Thrift and Loan Association provides financial services such
as savings and investment products, residential loans, commercial
loans, and automobile financing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Tel: 800-400-6808
          Fax: 800-520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

                - and -

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (619) 233-7770
          Fax: (619) 297-1022
          Email: yana@kazlg.com


BLOCK.ONE: Crypto Assets Sues Over Misleading Reports
-----------------------------------------------------
CRYPTO ASSETS OPPORTUNITY FUND LLC and JOHNNY HONG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BLOCK.ONE, BRENDAN BLUMER, DANIEL LARIMER, IAN GRIGG, and BROCK
PIERCE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03829 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly-situated investors who
purchased securities issued by Block.one called EOS Tokens during
the period of June 26, 2017 to the present.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants failed to register the EOS Securities pursuant
to the federal securities laws and released materially false and
misleading statements about EOS. By failing to prepare and file a
registration statement, Block.one did not provide critical
information to purchasers of EOS Securities, such as information
about Block.one's financial condition, future plans of operation
and budget, the proposed uses of investor proceeds, and detailed
disclosures of material trends and the most significant factors
that made the initial coin offering (ICO) speculative and risky.

The Defendants also falsely claimed the EOS blockchain would
provide a decentralized platform superior to existing blockchain
options to attract more investors for the EOS securities, both in
the ICO and in the secondary market, which artificially inflated
the prices of securities and damaged unsuspecting investors. In
reality, Block.one did not have the ability to create a
decentralized EOS blockchain.

Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund LLC is an entity engaged in the
pooled investment fund industry with principal place of business in
Northbrook, Illinois.

Block.one is an open-source software publisher and an entity formed
under the laws of the Cayman Islands with offices, operations, and
employees in New York City, California, Virginia, and Hong Kong.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:         
         
         Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
         Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
         Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
         GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
         485 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (646) 722-8500
         Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
         E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
                 dberger@gelaw.com
                 cmoyna@gelaw.com

               - and -
         
         James L. Koutoulas, Esq.
         KOUTOULAS LAW LLC
         1111 Kane Concourse, Suite 603
         Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
         Telephone: (312) 836-1180
         Facsimile: (888) 391-8179
         E-mail: james@koutoulaslaw.com

               - and -
         
         Ievgeniia P. Vatrenko, Esq.
         2 Northside Piers
         Brooklyn, NY 11249
         Telephone: (718) 451-6384
         E-mail: jenny@vatrenkoesq.com

               - and -
         
         J. Samuel Tenenbaum, Esq.
         NORTHWESTERN PRITZKER SCHOOL OF LAW
         375 East Chicago Avenue
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (312) 503-4808
         E-mail: s-tenenbaum@law.northwestern.edu

BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Pa. Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brightview Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, In re BrightView Holdings,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

In April 2019, two purported class action complaints, one captioned
McComas v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., and the other captioned
Speiser v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., were filed against the
Company, certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company, the underwriters in the Company's Initial Public Offering
(IPO), and the Company's alleged controlling stockholders.

The complaints were consolidated in July 2019 in the Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas under the caption In re BrightView
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, with the McComas complaint,
as subsequently amended, as the operative pleading.  

Both complaints allege violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against all defendants and controlling person claims
under Section 15 of the Act against certain defendants.

The plaintiffs purport to represent similar classes of persons who
purchased BrightView stock in its IPO in July 2018 or purchased
BrightView stock in the market that was traceable to the shares
issued in the IPO. The complaints allege that the IPO prospectus
was misleading because it allegedly failed to disclose that a
portion of BrightView's contracts were underperforming and/or
represented undesirable costs to the Company and that, as a result,
BrightView would implement a managed exit strategy from low margin
or non-profitable contracts that would negatively impact its future
revenues; and that BrightView failed to disclose an alleged labor
shortage caused by the Company's inability to hire sufficient
workers through the H-2B visa program would adversely affect
earnings.

On August 12, 2019, BrightView and the other defendants filed
preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the complaint as
legally insufficient. Defendants also filed a petition for
dismissal based on the provision in BrightView's certificate of
incorporation that designates the federal district courts of the
United States of America as the exclusive forum for resolving any
claim arising under the United States federal securities laws, or
to stay the action pending the decision of the Delaware Supreme
Court in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi.

In that case, the Delaware Supreme Court was expected to decide
whether federal forum selection provisions such as the one in
BrightView's certificate of incorporation are enforceable under
Delaware law.  

On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On November 6, 2019, the Court overruled defendants'
preliminary objections and denied defendants' petition for
dismissal or for a stay, without prejudice to renewal after the
Delaware Supreme Court issued its decision in Salzberg v.
Sciabacucchi.  

On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed answers to the complaint.
On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court rendered its
decision, upholding under Delaware's General Corporate Law the
facial validity of federal-forum selection provisions such as the
one in BrightView's certificate of incorporation.

The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against
the actions.  The Company is unable at this time to determine the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may
incur as a result of these matters.

Brightview Holdings Inc. is a commercial landscaping services
provider. The Company provides commercial landscaping services,
ranging from landscape maintenance and enhancements to tree care
and landscape development. It operates through an integrated
national service prototype, which systematically delivers services
at the local levels. The company is based in Blue Bell,
Pennsylvania.


BURMA SUPERSTAR: Employees Win $1.3MM Settlement in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susana Guerrero, writing for SFGATE.com, reports that Burma
Superstar employees have won $1.3 million in a class-action
settlement against the owner for unfair wages.

The Alameda Superior Court approved the settlement following a
class-action suit that was first filed in 2016. The settlement
included staff from Burma Superstar, Burma Love, and B star
restaurants across SF, Oakland and Alameda.

In 2016, Burma Superstar kitchen staff alleged that restaurant
owners Desmond Tan and Jocelyn Lee paid less than minimum wage,
withheld overtime pay, failed to provide sick leave, did not
provide sufficient meal and rest breaks, and unlawfully retaliated
against employees.

In addition, the lawsuit indicated that tips were not given to
back-of-house employees.

At the time, the owners called the allegations "frivolous" and
"false." A spokesman for the restaurant predicted that the owners
would be, "totally exonerated and will prevail in court," the San
Francisco Chronicle reported in 2016.

Following the settlement, the class, represented by Asian Law
Caucus (ALC), Centro Legal de la Raza, and Legal Aid at Work, will
have all tips, holidays and time off benefits restored. The owners
have agreed to also and establish designated rest area for
employees at each of their restaurants, according to Legal Aid at
Work.

Additionally, employee handbooks and workplace rules will be
translated into Burmese, Spanish and Chinese and meal period
waivers will also be revised.

"These are the frontline workers who risk their own health and
safety to provide essential services for all of us, and today they
came together and proudly stood up for the rights of workers
everywhere," Jesse Newmark, Litigation Director for Centro Legal de
la Raza, said in a statement.

In a statement to The Chronicle, Tan upheld the belief that the
allegations were untrue and indicated that the business was
"dedicated to the well-being of its staff."

"While we strongly disagreed with the allegations in the
class-action lawsuit, we settled the lawsuit in order to move on,"
Tan told The Chronicle. "These are challenging times for all
restaurants, but we know that we will get through it with the
support of our community and our dedicated employees, who have been
a huge part of our success."  [GN]

CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Houser et al. v.
CenturyLink, et al.

CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were
named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the
state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of
former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as
a result of the company's acquisition of Level 3.

It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3
shareholders failed to disclose various material information of
several kinds, including information about strategic revenue,
customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other
items. The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission,
rescissory damages, and other equitable relief.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Refuses to Pay Insureds, Stone Soup Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Soup, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-02614-TJS (E.D. Pa., June 4, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for breach of contract for refusing to pay the
Plaintiff's insureds for losses suffered due to any executive
orders by civil authorities that have required the necessary
suspension of business.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's future is now
threatened by the government-ordered shutdowns prohibiting group
dining and events, which prevents use of the Plaintiff's property
for its intended purpose and interrupts the Plaintiff's normal
business operations. To protect the business in the event that it
suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of the
Plaintiff's control, the Plaintiff purchased a policy of insurance
from Cincinnati.

The policy contained coverage extensions for Business Income,
Extended Business Income, Extra Expense, and Business Income from
Dependent Properties, providing for payment of the actual loss of
business income and extra expenses incurred by the Plaintiff during
a period of restoration. The policy further contained a Civil
Authority provision, for payment of business income and extra
expenses due to an action of a civil authority prohibiting access
to the property.

The Plaintiff was forced to suspend its catering and event business
due to orders issued by civil authorities in Pennsylvania mandating
the suspension of nonessential business to prevent potential
exposure to COVID-19. Following timely notice of its claim, the
Plaintiff was denied business income coverage by Cincinnati.
Cincinnati has, on a wide-scale and uniform basis, refused to pay
its insureds for losses suffered due to any executive orders by
civil authorities that have required the necessary suspension of
business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to
minimize the suspension of business and continue operations in
response to COVID-19, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff trades as Peachtree Catering and Events, and provides
both onsite and offsite catering services.

The Cincinnati Insurance Company is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
          Meghan J. Talbot, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 963-0600
          Fax: (215) 963-0838
          Email: dbacine@barrack.com
                 mrosen@barrack.com
                 jbarrack@barrack.com
                 mtalbot@barrack.com

               - and –

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          One America Plaza
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619)-230-0800
          Email: sbasser@barrack.com

               - and –

          Walter Weir, Jr., Esq.
          WEIR & PARTNERS, LLP
          The Widener Building, Fifth Floor
          1339 Chestnut St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19107-3519
          Phone: (215) 241-7721
          Fax: (215) 665-8191
          Email: wweir@weirpartners.com


CNC OILFIELD: Paredes Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
----------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO PAREDES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CNC OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00600 (W.D. Tex., May 18, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from August 2019 until March
2020 as a driver providing hauling services to Defendant's
clients.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked 40 hours in
a week, more than 12 hours in each shift and 14 or more hours each
day, and reported the hours he worked to Defendant on a regular
basis. However, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

CNC Oilfield Services, LLC offers oilfield support operations,
including transportation of fluids and materials to and from drill
sites. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: 713-999-5228
          Fax: 713-999-1187
          Email: matt@parmet.law


COLONY CAPITAL: Schall Law Announces Filing of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Colony
Capital, Inc. (NYSE: CLNY) ("Colony" or "the Company") for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 9,
2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 27, 2020.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/join-action-form/?slug=colony-capital-inc-2&id=2488

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Colony's sale of its real estate
portfolio and the splitting apart of Colony Credit Real Estate's
portfolio were likely to negatively impact the Company's financial
results. The Company's remaining portfolio companies carried
unsustainably high levels of debt secured by healthcare and hotel
properties and were at a significant risk of default. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Colony, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

        The Schall Law Firm
        Brian Schall, Esq.,
        www.schallfirm.com
        Office: 310-301-3335
        Cell: 424-303-1964
        info@schallfirm.com
[GN]



CONN'S INC: Gross Law Announces Filing of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm notified
of a class action filed against publicly traded Conn's, Inc.
(CONN).

Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Conn's, Inc. (CONN)
Investors Affected: September 3, 2019 - December 9, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Conn's, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Conn's was experiencing an increase in first
payment defaults and 60-plus day delinquencies; (2) as a result,
Conn's was reasonably likely to record an increase to its provision
for bad debts; (3) the Company made certain underwriting
adjustments, including tightening its standards for new customers
and online applicants; (4) as a result, the Company's same-store
sales would be adversely impacted; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/conns-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7184&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
         Tel: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
[GN]

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Court Dismisses O’Connell Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division dismissed the case captioned KATHLEEN O'KEEFFE, as
successor trustee of the O'Connell Family Trust, individually and
as a class representative, Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-0402. (N.D. Ohio)

The motion to dismiss was filed by defendant, Continental Casualty
Company (CNA) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

In 2007, a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included
O'Connell, sued CNA. Pavlov v. Cont'l Cas. Co., N.D. Ohio Case No.
5:07-cv-2580. The Pavlov litigation challenged CNA's practice of
denying LTCF Benefit claims on the basis that the facility for
which coverage was sought did not have a nurse on-site 24 hours a
day, seven days a week.  

In 2009, this Court approved a settlement agreement in Pavlov.
Under the terms of the Pavlov Settlement, as to Class II
policyholders, CNA agreed to abandon the 24/7 on-site requirement
for the policies at issue and agreed to pay the full daily LTCF
Benefit Amount as long as the facility had a qualified nurse
on-site for at least five hours per day, seven days per week
(35-Hour Standard).

The instant putative class action complaint alleges, in Count I,
that CNA breached the Pavlov Settlement by prematurely terminating
the APC Benefit coverage allegedly owed to O'Connell and to
similarly situated policyholders.

Count II raises a claim under an Illinois statute for recovery of
reasonable attorney fees and other costs related to insurer bad
faith. Count III asserts a common law claim of insurer bad faith.

Count I - Breach of Contract

CNA argues that the Pavlov Settlement did not alter the Benefit
Period in O'Connell's insurance policy; it merely modified CNA's
interpretation of the nurse supervision requirement for making a
facility eligible for coverage under the Policy.

Plaintiff concedes that O'Connell chose a 6-year (2190 days)
Benefit Period, noting that benefit periods generally range from
two (2) years to unlimited.  But plaintiff argues that this Benefit
Period, which is not mentioned in the Pavlov Settlement, explicitly
applies only to the LTCF Benefit, not to the APC Benefit.  

The Policy defines Long-Term Care Facility to include certain
requirements, including the 24-hour-a-day nursing services
requirement that was subsequently addressed by the Pavlov
Settlement.  
The Pavlov Settlement defines Long Term Care Facility Benefit as
the benefit payable for stays at a Long Term Care Facility under a
Policy and it defines the APC Benefit as the benefit so-described
in the Policies.

CNA has the correct position. The Policy has two basic limiting
elements and an overall cap that must all be construed in concert
with each other and with the Pavlov Settlement. The two limiting
elements in the Policy consist of the amount that will be paid and
the period of time during which that amount will be paid. The
amount is, alone or in combination, either the full LTCF Benefit or
the APC Benefit depending on the nature of a particular facility
and whether it meets certain requirements or the accommodation APC
Benefit set forth in the Pavlov Settlement.  

Plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim for relief on breach
of contract because, taking all the facts as true, and considering
them in light of the Policy which is the Court's to construe, CNA
breached neither the Pavlov Settlement nor O'Connell's Policy when
it terminated payment of benefits after the 2190 days or 6 years
had expired.

CNA is entitled to dismissal of Count I of the complaint.

Counts II and III

Count III alleges a common law claim of bad faith and Count II
seeks attorney's fees under an Illinois statute whose purpose is to
authorize awards of such fees to policyholders who prevail on bad
faith claims against their insurer. Both claims require an
underlying breach of contract, here, a breach of the Pavlov
Settlement when read in conjunction with the Policy.   

Accordingly, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion, a full-text
copy of which is available at https://preview.tinyurl.com/vb4w8r5
from Leagle.com, granting Continental Casualty Company's motion to
dismiss.

Kathleen O'Keeffe, individually and as a class representative and
as successor trustee of the O'Connell Family Trust, Plaintiff,
represented by Ex Kano S. Sams, II - ESAMS@GLANCYLAW.COM - Glancy
Prongay & Murray, Sean K. Collins , Law Office of Arthur F. Graham,
Janet Eileen Pecquet - janet@b-pelderlaw.com - Burke & Pecquet &
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg - jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - Goldenberg
Schneider.

Continental Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by Brent R.
Austin -baustin@eimerstahl.com - Eimer Stahl, Jerry S. Sallee r -
jerry.sallee@dinsmore.com - Dinsmore & Shohl, Margaret E. Truesdale
- mtruesdale@eimerstahl.com - Eimer Stahl & Ronit C. Barrett -
rbarrett@eimerstahl.com - Eimer Stahl.

CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Ballard et al Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNE BALLARD, MARSHA CAPOSELL, GREGORY SCOTT GALATIAN, and JOHN
GANDARA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00418 (M.D. Tenn., May 15, 2020) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful
employment policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as correctional officers in a
non-exempt hourly capacity within the last two years – Ballard
and Caposell at Defendant's Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in
Mahoning County, Ohio, Galatian at its Cimarron Correctional
Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma, and Gandara at its Bent County
Correctional facility in Las Animas, Colorado.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
correctional and detention officers who were employed by Defendant
frequently worked over 40 hours per week. However, Defendant failed
to compensate them at the rate of one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees, and costs.

Corecivic of Tennessee, LLC operates over 40 correctional and
detention centers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert C. Bigelow, Esq.
          BIGELOW LEGAL P.C.
          4235 Hillsboro Pike, Ste. 217
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Tel: (615)829-8986
          Email: bigelowlegal@gmail.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Faces Crook FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Michael Crook, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC,
LVNV Funding, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-at-00399 (E.D.
Cal., June 4, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Credit Control, LLC, provides financial services. The Company
provides early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


CROWN ASSET: Bey Calls Debt Collection Lawsuit "Deceptive"
----------------------------------------------------------
LAMONT BEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00715-AJS (W.D. Pa., May 15, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of
the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and the Consumer Discount
Company Act (CDCA).

Plaintiff has an alleged defaulted personal loan that was allegedly
issued by Prosper Funding LLC and/or Prosper Marketplace, Inc and
was financed by WebBank.

According to the complaint, Defendant sued Plaintiff on December 9,
2019 in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas regarding the
defaulted debt which Defendant has purchased to collect. However,
the lawsuit was and continues to be unlawful, unfair, and deceptive
means to collect a debt.

The complaint asserts that Defendant could not lawfully purchase
the account because Defendant has no license to collect under the
CDCA, is not a federal or state chartered financial institution,
and was not approved by the Department of Banking to lawfully
purchase the account.

Moreover, the sale of the account was void and legally
unenforceable since Defendant and the Prosper Entities failed to
obtain the required approval for the purchase or sale of the
account from the Department.

As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered anxiety,
stress, confusion, and emotional distress.

Crown Asset Management, LLC purchases defaulted consumer debt to
collect for profit. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          186 42nd St., P.O. Box 40127
          Pittsburgh, PA 15201
          Tel: (412)223-5740
          Fax: (412)626-7101
          Emails: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com

                - and -

          Eugene D. Frank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C.
          3202 McKnight East Drive
          Pittsburgh, PA 15237
          Tel: (412)366-4276
          Fax: (412)366-4305
          Email: efrank@edf-law.com


CRYSTAL CRUISES: Breier Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under PAGA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHERRYL BREIER, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees
v. CRYSTAL CRUISES, LLC, a California limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 20SMCV00733 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 22, 2020), seeks to recover civil penalties under
Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees
were not paid minimum wages for all work, nor were they paid all
overtime wages due and owing. They were required to perform work
and work-related tasks while off-the-clock, in violation of
California's minimum wage laws, which in turn, lead to violations
of overtime laws as the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees worked
shifts in excess of 8 daily hours, says the complaint.

Crystal Cruises is an American cruise line with headquarters in Los
Angeles in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfredo Nava, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFREDO NAVA JR., APC
          3500 West Beverly Blvd.
          Montebello, CA 90640
          Telephone: (323) 725-1151
          Facsimile: (855) 777-0925
          E-mail: alfredo@lawofficeofalfredonava.com


CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Reminds of July 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CTMX) between May 17, 2018, and May 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important July 20, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
CytomX investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the CytomX class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1860.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) CytomX had downplayed issues with CX-072's efficacy
observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program; (2) CytomX had
similarly downplayed issues with CX-2009's efficacy and safety
observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and (3) as a
result, CytomX's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 20,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1860.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      cases@rosenlegal.com
      www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suits Challenge BorgWarner Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Technologies, PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in several suits related to its merger with
BorgWarner, Inc.

On January 28, 2020, Delphi's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with BorgWarner.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Delphi's
stockholders will receive 0.4534 shares of BorgWarner common stock
for each share of Delphi common stock they own.

Since the January 28, 2020 announcement that the Company had
entered into a definitive transaction agreement with BorgWarner
Inc., five complaints have been filed by alleged Company
shareholders captioned: Sherman v. Delphi Technologies PLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00385-UNA (filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware) (the "Sherman Complaint"); Costa v.
Delphi Technologies PLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02363-PAC,
Catalano v. Delphi Technologies, PLC, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-02520-UA, and Schlageter v. Delphi Technologies PLC, et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02527-UA (each filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York); and Heinowski v.
Delphi Technologies PLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10834-LVP-APP
(filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan).

The complaint in each case names as defendants the Company and the
members of the board of directors of the Company and alleges, among
other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder by omitting supposedly material information from the
preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company on March 11, 2020,
rendering it false and/or misleading.

In addition, the Sherman Complaint names BorgWarner as a defendant
with respect to its claim under Section 20(a) and, unlike the other
complaints, is a putative class action.

The plaintiffs in the actions each seek, among other relief, an
injunction against proceeding with the shareholder vote on the
proposed transaction or consummating the proposed transaction
absent corrective disclosures, damages and attorneys' and expert
fees.

The Company believes the allegations made in the complaints to be
without merit.

Delphi Technologies, PLC provides automotive parts and equipment.
The Company develops, designs, and manufactures powertrain
technologies for original equipment manufacturers. Delphi
Technologies serves customers in the United Kingdom.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Jones Sues in N.D. Georgia Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Martika Jones,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 4:20-cv-00128-HLM-WEJ (N.D. Ga., June 5,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions provides nationwide consumer collection
services to industries including Banking, Student Loan, Debt
Purchasing, Heath Care, Retail, Telecommunication and Utilities,
and On Line Lending.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
          THE OAKS FIRM
          3895 Brookgreen Pt.
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Phone: (404) 725-5697
          Fax: (775) 320-3695
          Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com


EI DU PONT: Continues to Defend PFAS-Related Class Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend against a nationwide class action suit in Ohio
related to Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
water contamination.

The company (EID) is a defendant in three lawsuits: an action by
the State of Ohio based on alleged damage to natural resources, a
putative nationwide class action brought on behalf of anyone who
has detectable levels of Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) in their blood serum, and an action by the City
of Dayton claiming losses related to the investigation, remediation
and monitoring of PFAS in water supplies.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.


EI DU PONT: Continues to Defend PFOA-Related Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOA") in New York around the
Hoosick Falls Area.

The company (EID) is a defendant in about 60 lawsuits, including a
putative class action, brought by persons who live in and around
Hoosick Falls, New York.

These lawsuits assert claims for medical monitoring and property
damage based on alleged Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) releases from
manufacturing facilities owned and operated by co-defendants in
Hoosick Falls and allege that EID and 3M supplied some of the
materials used at these facilities.

EID is also one of more than 10 defendants in a lawsuit brought by
the Town of East Hampton, New York alleging PFOA and PFOS
contamination of the town's well water.

Additionally, EID was served with complaints filed by six water
districts in Nassau County, New York alleging that the drinking
water they provide to customers is contaminated with Perfluoroalkyl
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and seeking reimbursement for
clean-up costs.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.


EI DU PONT: Various Drinking Water Contamination Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has
been named as a defendant in several suits including class action
suit related to perfluorinated chemicals and compounds (PFC).

At March 31, 2020, several actions are pending in federal court
against Chemours and the company (EID) relating to perfluorinated
chemicals and compounds (PFC) discharges from the Fayetteville
Works facility.

One of these is a consolidated putative class action that asserts
claims for medical monitoring and property damage on behalf of
putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or
who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River.

Another action is a consolidated action brought by various North
Carolina water authorities, including the Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority and Brunswick County, that seek actual and punitive
damages as well as injunctive relief.

The other action is on behalf of about 100 plaintiffs who own wells
and property near the Fayetteville Works facility.

The plaintiffs seek damages for nuisance allegedly caused by
releases of certain PFCs from the site.

The plaintiffs' claims for medical monitoring, punitive damages,
public nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, failure to warn, and
negligent manufacture have all been dismissed.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.


ENTERPRISE LEASING: Faces Benson Class Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enterprise Leasing
Company of Florida, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as ELVA
BENSON, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF FLORIDA, LLC,
and ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF ORLANDO, LLC, Case No.
6:20-cv-00891-RBD-LRH (M.D. Fla., May 25, 2020).

The Defendants are doing auto renting and leasing business in
Coconut Creek, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  gnichols@wfclaw.com


EON CLINICS: Underpays & Misclassifies Staff, Ruttenberg et al Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
ISABEL RUTTENBERG and AMANDA LAWSON, on behalf of Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EON CLINICS, P.C.,
RAJAN SHARMA, and MINTU SHARMA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02948
(N.D. Ill., May 18, 2020) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for their alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants – Ruttenberg for
approximately 12 years selling treatment plans to Defendant's
patients, and Lawson as a surgical assistant for over 3 years.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
current and former employees regularly worked over 40 hours per
week. But, Defendant did not fully paid their overtime hours at one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay.

Rajan Sharma is the President and Founder of Eon Clinics and
controls the Company.

Mintu Sharma is EON's Chief Financial Officer and oversees
payroll.

EON Clinics, P.C. operates dental clinics in Wisconsin, Illinois
and Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5th Ave, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Tel: (630) 355-7590
          Fax: (630) 778-0400
          Website: https://fishlawfirm.com/about/


EVENFLO COMPANY: Alston Suit Moved From D.S.C. to Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tarnisha Alston, individually and on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Evenflo Company,
Inc., Case No. 9:20-cv-00801 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on June 5, 2020.

The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-11072-DJC to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Evenflo Company, Inc., operates the juvenile travel and home safety
businesses with products that include car seats, travel systems,
safety gates, high chairs, play yards, stationary activity centers,
infant carriers and doorway jumpers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (919) 600-5000
          Email: harper@wbmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James F. Rogers, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
          1320 Main Street, Meridian, Suite 1700
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Phone: (843) 853-5200
          Fax: (843) 722-8700
          Email: jim.rogers@nelsonmullins.com


EVENFLO COMPANY: Sapeika Suit Moved From Ohio to Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Amy Sapeika, Individially and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Evenflo Company, Inc., Case No.
3:20-cv-00068, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on June 4, 2020.

The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-11066-DJC to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

Evenflo Company, Inc., operates the juvenile travel and home safety
businesses with products that include car seats, travel systems,
safety gates, high chairs, play yards, stationary activity centers,
infant carriers and doorway jumpers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Burdette Helmer, Jr. , Esq.
          HELMER MARTINS, RICE & POPHAM CO., L.P.A.
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2704
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4008
          Phone: (513) 421-2400
          Fax: (513) 421-7902
          Email: jhelmer@fcalawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David John Barthel, Esq.
          Timothy R. Bricker, Esq.
          CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LPP
          280 Plaza, Suite 1300
          280 N. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 365-4100
          Fax: (614) 365-9145
          Email: barthel@carpenterlipps.com
                 bricker@carpenterlipps.com


EVENTBRITE INC: Refuses to Refund Nixed Event Tickets, Snow Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri Snow, Anthony Piceno and Linda Conner, as individuals, on
behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly
situated v. EVENTBRITE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.,
June 4, 2020), is brought to seek redress for the Defendant's
deceptive practices relating to its sale of live events tickets and
its refusal to provide refunds for live events that have been
canceled, rescheduled and/or postponed.

Eventbrite sold event tickets to the Plaintiffs. Eventbrite assured
customers that refunds would be issued "in accordance with all
applicable local, state, provincial, national and other laws, rules
and regulations." Eventbrite further assured all customers that
California law applied to all ticket purchases. After the
coronavirus outbreak forced the cancelation or postponement of most
large events and public gatherings, Eventbrite has consistently
refused to allow for refunds for canceled, postponed and/or
rescheduled events, including when events are "indefinitely"
postponed, the Plaintiffs assert.

Instead, the Plaintiffs say, Eventbrite has tried to shift
responsibility to event organizers, allowing them to refuse refunds
for cancellations, postponements and rescheduled events. At best,
Eventbrite has urged some organizers to "make good" when events are
canceled, postponed and/or rescheduled, according to the complaint.
This "make good" requirement only appears to apply to event
tickets: (i) that were purchased before March 15th; and (ii) were
scheduled to take place between March 15, 2020, and May 15, 2020.
All later purchases and later scheduled events that are canceled,
postponed and/or rescheduled due to Covid-19 restrictions are not
even covered by Eventbrite's "make good" policy.

Even for those event tickets that the "make good" policy applies,
the policy has unlawful limitations, the Plaintiffs contend. For
example, Eventbrite will not provide refunds where organizers "are
offering an alternate form of accommodation (e.g., future tickets,
credit)," no matter when in the future the event might occur or how
much or when the credit might apply. The Defendant has quietly
sought to force its buyers to endure the financial losses that the
Defendant would suffer in the entirely foreseeable scenario that
world occurrences would cause the simultaneous cancellation and/or
postponement of numerous public events, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Snow purchased four tickets the Reggae Rise Up Musical
Festival. Plaintiff Piceno purchased tickets to the Barbara Mason
concert and dinner. Plaintiff Conner purchased tickets to the Tanya
Tucker concert.

Eventbrite is an online seller of event tickets and acts as the
agent to those who host events, such as promoters, venues, teams,
and artist representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 789-6390
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469


FCA US: Davis et al. Sue Over Oil Consumption Defect in Cars
------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE DAVIS, STEPHANIE THORNTON, ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, KIMBERLY EAGER,
MIKAELYN MCDOWELL, HOLLY HICKMAN, AMBER PORTUGAL MICHAEL SANCHEZ,
and ARTEAL JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-11223-RHC-MJH (E.D. Mich., May 18, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for fraudulent concealment and violations of
the Florida Unfair And Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and the Consumer Fraud
Act in New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased or leased any vehicle
manufactured by the Defendant and equipped with a 2.4L Tigershark
MultiAir II Engine, allege that the Defendant manufactures and
sells the Class vehicles without disclosing a significant design
and/or manufacturing defect in their engines that causes them to
improperly burn off and/or consume abnormally high amounts of oil.
As a result of this oil consumption defect, the Class vehicles can
shut down during the course of their normal operation, placing the
occupants, including the Plaintiffs, and surrounding vehicles at an
increased risk of serious injury and death. FCA has long known
about the oil consumption and oil indicator defects, as hundreds of
Class Vehicle owners and lessees have reported instances of their
vehicles shutting down without warning due to low oil levels and/or
pressure. Yet, it engaged in efforts to conceal them by describing
the defects as normal. The alleged defects not only threaten every
passenger in a Class vehicle, they also materially reduce the Class
vehicles' value as well. Consumers, including the Plaintiffs, who
purchased them have been harmed by purchases they would not have
made or paid as much for had they known the truth.

FCA US LLC is a manufacturer, designer, and marketer of automobiles
and motor vehicle components with principal place of business
located at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
           
         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-7292
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -
         
         Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (213) 330-7150
         E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -
         
         E. Powell Miller, Esq.
         THE MILLER LAW FIRM P.C.
         Miller Building
         950 West University Drive, Suite 300
         Rochester, MI 48307
         Telephone: (248) 841-2200
         E-mail: epm@miller.law

               - and -
         
         Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
         Todd Naylor, Esq.
         GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
         One West 4th Street, 18th Floor
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 345-8291
         E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                 tnaylor@gs-legal.com

FCA US: Won't Honor Powertrain Warranty, Grundy et al. Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PAUL GRUNDY, CARL WOOD, CHRISTOPHER LANGLEY, KIMBERLY
COOPER, FRANK BILOTTA, DAVIN POWELL, MICHAEL CELENZA, GERALD
MCGUIRE, DAVID WILSON, CHRISTINA HEAVRIN, JOAN GARN, ANDREW YOUNG,
ALAN ANDERSEN, JANE LOAKE, KENNETH HENRIQUES, TERRY BUSCHBACH,
KEITH HEAD, RICHARD VAN ORDEN, SCOTT LUNSKI, GLEN FOX, VICTORIA
HECKER, STEPHEN BUCKLEW, JAMES BYRD, BARBARA ASIBOR, SUSAN STOKER,
JESSICA FINCH and MAURA PETERSEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-11231-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., May 18, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's breach of express warranty and breach of
contract/common law warranties in several states in the U.S.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly-situated individuals who
purchased 2006-2009 Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles, sold and
delivered on, or after, July 26, 2007 with a Lifetime Limited
Powertrain Warranty.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
refused to diagnose and perform repairs for Class vehicles' failed
powertrain components under the Lifetime Warranty by claiming that
the Plaintiffs and Class members failed to adhere to a provision
within the warranty that their vehicles undergo a powertrain
inspection within 60 days of each five-year anniversary of its
in-service date, the Inspection Clause. As result, the Plaintiffs
and Class members have been forced to incur significant
out-of-pocket expenses for parts and labor to fix their vehicles.
FCA has also expressly repudiated its obligations to repair the
Plaintiffs' vehicles by altogether revoking their Lifetime
Warranties. The Plaintiffs claim that FCA's non-performance of its
obligation under the Lifetime Warranty is without justification
because they were never given reasonable notice of the existence of
Inspection Clause at the time of purchasing their vehicles and the
Inspection Clause is unconscionable.

FCA US LLC is a manufacturer, designer, and marketer of automobiles
and motor vehicle components with principal place of business
located at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         E. Powell Miller, Esq.
         Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
         Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
         Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
         William Kalas, Esq.
         THE MILLER LAW FIRM P.C.
         950 W University Dr # 300,
         Rochester, MI 48307
         Telephone: (248) 841-2200
         E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                 ssa@millerlawpc.com
                 eeh@millerlawpc.com
                 dal@millerlawpc.com
                 wk@millerlawpc.com

               - and -
         
         Richard D. McCune, Esq.
         David C. Wright, Esq.
         Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
         Mark I. Richards, Esq.
         MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
         3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100
         Ontario, CA 91761
         Telephone: (909) 557-1250
         Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
         E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                 dcw@mccunewright.com
                 sah@mccunewright.com
                 mir@mccunewright.com

FEDERAL WARRANTY: Fritz Sues Over Sale of Lowe's Protection Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW FRITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FEDERAL WARRANTY SERVICE CORPORATION, and LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02210-MHC (N.D. Ga., May 22, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants based on their unfair and
deceptive business practices with respect to the marketing and sale
of Lowe's Protection Plans.

The Plaintiff contends that when selling the Protection Plans, the
Defendants do not provide access to the Protection Plans' Terms and
Conditions, which severely restrict and contradict the seemingly
broad coverage represented by the Defendants. He adds that for
years, the Defendants have been knowingly selling useless or
severely diminished Protection Plans to customers. The Defendants
routinely sell Protection Plans for products for which the
manufacturer's warranty is equal to or longer in duration than the
Protection Plan, he further alleges.

The Protection Plans are represented as extended or additional
warranty plans for items purchased at Lowe's home improvement
stores. Federal Warranty Service Corporation is the administrator
of the Protection Plans.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the public,
actual damages, restitution, and/or disgorgement of profits,
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief
available to the Class as a result of the Defendants' unlawful
conduct.

Federal Warranty was founded in 2003. The Company's line of
business includes underwriting financial responsibility insurance.

Lowe's is a nation-wide retailer of home-related products,
including large and small appliances, barbecue grills, lawn mowers,
power tools, and similar products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Killorin, Esq.
          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          3975 Roswell Rd., Suite A,
          Atlanta, GA 30342
          Telephone: 404-847-0617
          Facsimile: 404-506-9534
          E-mail: rkillorin@faruqilaw.com
                  tpeter@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Fifth Third
Bancorp (NASDAQ: FITB) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
26, 2016 and March 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 8, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Fifth Third employees engaged in
unauthorized activity with customer accounts due to the Company's
aggressive cross-sell incentives. The Company had been aware of the
behavior since at least 2008, placing it in violation of consumer
protection laws and regulations. The Company failed to maintain
appropriate controls on its cross-selling investives, including
detecting and stopping misconduct. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Fifth Third, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         The Schall Law Firm
         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Web site: http://www.schallfirm.com/
         Office: 310-301-3335
         E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN]


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Saber FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Safwat Saber, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02490 (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Financial Recovery Services, Inc., provides debt collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


FLORIDA SOUTHERN: Salerno Suit Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Salerno, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FLORIDA SOUTHERN COLLEGE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04314
(S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who
paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at FSC,
and who, because of its response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease
2019 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they
paid, and/or the services for which their fees paid, without having
their tuition and fees refunded to them.

On March 12, 2020, FSC announced that because of the global
COVID-19 pandemic, in-person classes would be suspended on March
13, 2020 for ten days, with classes to resume online on March 23,
2020. FSC advised students to leave campus and return home, and it
anticipated that in-person classes would resume on April 15, 2020.
However, on March 18, 2020, FSC President Anne B. Kerr announced in
a campus-wide email that FSC would "proceed with offering remote
instruction for the remainder of the semester. Thus, students will
not return to campus, as first planned, for classes to resume
face-to-face on April 15th." FSC has not held any in-person classes
since March 12, 2020. Classes that have continued have only been
offered in an online format, with no in-person instruction.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that she and the putative Class
contracted and paid for, Ms. Salerno contends. She asserts that the
online learning options being offered to FSC students are subpar in
practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials,
and access to faculty. She notes that students have been deprived
of the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person
dialogue, feedback, and critique. She adds that the remote learning
options are in no way the equivalent of the in-person education
that Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted and paid
for.

The Plaintiff insists that she and the putative class are,
therefore, entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person
educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that
Defendant has not provided. Even if the Defendant claims it did not
have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it nevertheless has
improperly retained funds for services it is not providing, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Ms. Salerno's daughter is an undergraduate student at FSC
pursuing a Bachelor's Degree in Biology.

Florida Southern College is a private institution of higher
education with its principal place of business in Lakeland,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: mroberts@bursor.com

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com


FOLGERS COFFEE: Marcia Sorin Files Class Suit in E.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Folgers Coffee
Company. The case is styled as Marcia Sorin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Folgers Coffee
Company, a subsidiary of the J.M. Smucker Company, Case No.
9:20-cv-80897-XXXX (E.D. Fla., June 4, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

Folgers Coffee is a brand of coffee produced in the United States,
and sold there, in Canada and in Mexico. The Company forms part of
the food and beverage division of The J.M. Smucker Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily Cornelia Komlossy, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
          4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (954) 842-2021
          Fax: (954) 416-6223
          Email: eck@komlossylaw.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Rosenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP, et al. The case is styled as Abraham Rosenfeld, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Absolute Resolutions Investments LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:20-cv-04326 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (347) 668-9326
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


FRANCISCO VALADEZ: Moshan-Martinez Seeks Wages for Farm Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ROLANDO MOSHAN-MARTINEZ, JOSE EDUARDO CASILLAS-SERRANO,
BULMARO DE LA ROSA-ALVARADO ISAIAS GOMEZ-GONZALEZ, EFRAIN
GOMEZ-SANTIZ, JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, MARICELA JIMENEZ-GIRON,
OSCAR GUADALUPE LOPEZ-ARCOS, and LORENZO LOPEZ-LOPEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
FRANCISCO VALADEZ, JR. LLC, FRANCISCO VALADEZ, JR., SLEEPY CREEK
FARMS, INC., GOLDSBORO MILLING CO., WINZELER FARMS, LLC, and COTTLE
FARMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00205-FL (E.D.N.C., May
18, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Unfair and
Deceptive Practices Act, and North Carolina common law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and similarly-situated
individuals from Mexico were convinced by the Defendants to work
lawfully in the U.S. and promised them large recruitment fees. They
were admitted to the U.S. on a temporary basis with visas pursuant
to the H-2A Program, to perform agricultural labor beginning in May
2018. However, when the Plaintiffs arrived in North Carolina, the
Defendants then exploited their indebtedness, housed them in
substandard conditions, and cultivated a climate of fear to compel
them to labor against their will at various blueberry farms. The
Defendants also breached their employment contracts by failing to
pay them the required minimum wages.

The Plaintiffs were recruited by and employed by the Defendants as
agricultural workers in or around Duplin and Bladen Counties, North
Carolina beginning May 2018.

Francisco Valadez, Jr. LLC is a farm labor contractor with
principal place of business located at 1345 Preston Road in
Smithfield, North Carolina.

Sleepy Creek Farms, Inc. is a blueberry farm operator based in
North Carolina.

Goldsboro Milling Co. is a retail company based in La Grange, North
Carolina.

Winzeler Farms, LLC is a blueberry farm owner in or near Kelly,
North Carolina.

Cottle Farms, Inc. is a farm owner that grows various vegetables
and fruit, including blueberries in or near Faison, North Carolina.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Caitlin A. Ryland, Esq.
         Aaron E. Jacobson, Esq.
         Benjamin L. Williams, Esq.
         LEGAL AID OF NORTH CAROLINA
         Farmworker Unit
         P.O. Box 26626
         Raleigh, NC 27611
         Telephone: (919) 856-2180
         E-mail: CaitlinR@legalaidnc.org
                 AaronJ@legalaidnc.org
                 BenjaminW@legalaidnc.org

               - and -
         
         Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
         Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
         NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
         P.O. Box 28068
         Raleigh, NC 27611
         Telephone: (919) 856-2570
         E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org
                 carol@ncjustice.org

FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: Jaramillo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO R. JARAMILLO JR., on himself and other current and former
aggrieved, California-based, hourly non-exempt employees v.
FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC.; FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; and
DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV19687 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 22, 2020), seeks civil penalties under the
Private Attorneys' General Act, California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked, failed to authorize or permit meal
periods, and failed to authorize or permit rest periods.

The Plaintiff and the class are aggrieved current and former
California-based hourly, non-exempt employees of the Defendants in
California.

Frontier provides telephone service in former Verizon regions,
including Southern California cities, such as Long Beach, Seal
Beach, Lakewood, Norwalk and Santa Monica.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberrv@lelawfirm.com
                  aburton@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892


FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Ferreira Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Ferreira v. Funko, Inc. et
al.

On March 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company and
certain of its officers, entitled Ferreira v. Funko, Inc. et al.
The complaint alleges that the Company and officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making allegedly
materially misleading statements in the Company's October 31, 2019
announcement of third quarter 2019 financial results and third
quarter 2019 Form 10-Q, as well as by omitting material facts
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading.

Two additional complaints making substantially similar
allegations—Nahas v. Funko, Inc. et al. and Dachev v. Funko, Inc.
et al.—were filed April 3, 2020 in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and April 9, 2020 in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, respectively.

The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company intends to move to dismiss these actions following
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


GLOBAL SERVICED: Breeze Sues in New Jersey Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GLOBAL SERVICED
APARTMENTS LLC. The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL SERVICED
APARTMENTS LLC, doing business as: Global Luxury Suites, a New York
limited liability company, Case No. 2:20-cv-06890 (D.N.J., June 5,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Global Luxury Suites offers temporary housing to families and
travelers, who believe that a short stay outside their homes
shouldn't be as impersonal and expensive as a hotel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik Mathew Bashiam, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 279-1554
          Fax: (516) 213-0339
          Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


GO FISH CARGO: Ruiz Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Byron H. Ruiz, and other similarly situated individuals v. GO FISH
CARGO, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-22322-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2020),
is brought to recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for unpaid overtime wages and for retaliation.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
per week. The Plaintiff was paid a salary regardless of the number
of hours worked in a week period, and he was not paid for overtime
hours at the mandatory rate of time and a half his regular rate, as
established by the FLSA. Even though the Plaintiff worked more than
40 hours, he was not paid for overtime hours. Therefore, the
Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime hours at
the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that
he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempted,
full-time, warehouse employee.

Go Fish Cargo is a third-party logistics provider, specializing in
the fish market and provides full cold storage, warehousing,
transportation, and related services to companies engaged in
interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GOTHIC GROUNDS: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUNIOR ARNULFO MEJIA GONZALEZ, individually, and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees v. GOTHIC GROUNDS MANAGEMENT, INC., a
corporation dba GOTHIC LANDSCAPE, INC.-MAINTENANCE DIVISION; GOTHIC
LANDSCAPING, INC., a corporation; GOTHIC LANDSCAPE, INC., an
unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV19664 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2020), seeks to
recover penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act,
California Labor Code, arising from unpaid wages earned and due,
including unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation,
illegal meal and rest period policies, and failure to pay all wages
due to discharged or quitting employees.

The Plaintiff and the class are current and former non-exempt
employees of the Defendants.

Gothic is a landscape contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Sydney A. Adams, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com
                  sadams@maternlawgroup.com


GRAND CANYON: Gross Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm is
informing shareholders of publicly-traded Grand Canyon Education,
Inc. (LOPE) on the filing of a class action lawsuit.  Shareholders
who purchased shares during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)

Investors Affected: January 5, 2018 - January 27, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. According to a filed complaint,
statements made by Defendants were false and/or misleading because,
following Grand Canyon's spin-off of its educational assets as
Grand Canyon University ("GCU"): (i) GCU would not be a proper
non-profit organization as it would remain under the control of
Grand Canyon, and (ii) Grand Canyon would not be a third-party
service provider to GCU but rather would continue to effectively
operate the entity, and (iii) Grand Canyon employees served as
executives of GCU and (iv) GCU functioned as an off-balance-sheet
entity to which Grand Canyon would be able to funnel expenses and
costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby
inflating Grand Canyon's financial results.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/grand-canyon-education-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7126&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
         Tel: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


GRAND CANYON: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE).  Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines
listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can
be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)

LOPE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 5, 2018
- January 27, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/grand-canyon-education-inc-loss-form?prid=7149&wire=1

According to a filed complaint, statements made by Defendants were
false and/or misleading because following Grand Canyon's spin-off
of its educational assets as Grand Canyon University ("GCU"): (i)
GCU would not be a proper non-profit organization as it would
remain under the control of Grand Canyon, and (ii) Grand Canyon
would not be a third-party service provider to GCU but rather would
continue to effectively operate the entity, and (iii) Grand Canyon
employees served as executives of GCU and (iv) GCU functioned as an
off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon would be able to
funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount
of revenue, thereby inflating Grand Canyon's financial results.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Tel: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com
          E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


GRAND CANYON: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Grand Canyon
Education, Inc. ("Grand Canyon" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:LOPE) for
violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between January 5,
2018 and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 13, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Grand Canyon artificially inflated its
financial results by employing a scheme to use the independent
non-profit entity, Grand Canyon University (GCU), as an
off-balance-sheet entity for the Company to hide expenses in
exchange for disproportionate shares of revenue. The Company
misleadingly described GCU to investors as "non-profit" and
"independent" when neither was true. The Company also misstated its
role in GCU, referring to itself as a third-party provider of
education services. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Grand Canyon,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

Contact:

        The Schall Law Firm
        Brian Schall, Esq.,
        www.schallfirm.com
        Office: 310-301-3335
        Cell: 424-303-1964
        info@schallfirm.com
[GN]



GROUPON INC: Howard G. Smith Notes of June 29 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Groupon, Inc.
Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Groupon, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRPN)

Class Period: November 4, 2019 - February 18, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company was experiencing fewer customer
engagements in its Goods category; (2) that Groupon relied on its
Goods category to drive its sales, especially during the holiday
season; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
likely to experience reduced sales; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To be a member of the class action, you need not take any action at
this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action
and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to
learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          Howard G. Smith, Esquire
          Tel: 215-638-4847
               888-638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/[GN]


GSX TECHEDU: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announced that a securities class action
lawsuit has been commenced against GSX Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GSX) in
the the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of GSX Techedu between June 6, 2019 and April 13, 2020
may participated in the lawsuit.

To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/gsx-techedu-inc-loss-form?prid=7166&wire=5

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) GSX overstated its profitability, revenue,
student enrollment figures, teacher qualifications, and teacher
selection process; (ii) the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in GSX you have until June 16, 2020 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor`
         New York, NY 10006
         jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Web site: http://www.zlk.com/
[GN]



HAIBAN INN LLC: Breeze Sues in New Jersey Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HAIBAN INN LLC. The
case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated v. HAIBAN INN LLC, a New Jersey limited
liability company, Case No. 2:20-cv-06837-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., June 4,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Haiban Inn is a basic, extended-stay budget hotel that is within
walking distance of several Indian restaurants, and 10 miles from
Newark Liberty International Airport.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik Mathew Bashiam, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 279-1554
          Fax: (516) 213-0339
          Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Falsely Markets Vanilla Oat Drinks, Sajnani Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Sajnani, Jean Mak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-04281 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2020), seeks damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing
practices with regards to its Vanilla Oat Beverage under its Dream
brand.

The relevant front label representations include "Dream" and
"Vanilla Oat Beverage." The Plaintiffs contend that the
representation of the Product's flavor as "Vanilla" is misleading
because it contains less vanilla than expected relative to its
total flavoring and its vanilla taste is enhanced by non-vanilla
flavors, not disclosed to consumers.

According to the complaint, the presence of non-vanilla flavors is
evident from the ingredient list, which designates "Natural Flavor"
as the only flavoring ingredient. That "Natural Flavor" does not
refer to an exclusively vanilla ingredient is discerned through
careful reading of the regulations. Because all ingredients are
required to be "listed by common or usual name," and the names for
the exclusively vanilla standardized foods are "vanilla extract"
and "vanilla flavoring," the Product admittedly does not contain
such ingredients as the sole source of flavoring.

The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed
to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiffs and
consumers, according to the complaint. The Defendant sold more of
the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence
of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense
of consumers like the Plaintiffs. Had the Plaintiffs and class
members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or
would have paid less for them.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $2.49 for
cartons of 32 OZ (946 ML or 1 QT), excluding tax, compared to other
similar products represented in a non-misleading way, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Dream Vanilla Oat Beverage.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells a Vanilla Oat Beverage under its Dream brand.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com


HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Howard G. Smith Notes of July 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded
Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL). Investors have
until the deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL)

Class Period: March 5, 2019 - March 17, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective internal controls
over accounting and financial reporting related to reserves for
unpaid losses; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for
reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to
its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; (3) that, as a
result, Hallmark Financial would be forced to report a $63.8
million loss development for prior underwriting years; (4) that, as
a result, Hallmark Financial would exit from its Binding Primary
Commercial Auto business; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact:

          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          Howard G. Smith, Esquire
          Tel: 215-638-4847
               888-638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/[GN]


HAMILTON BEACH: Faces Chen Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
YUNG-CHIH CHEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS HOLDING COMPANY, GREGORY H.
TREPP, and MICHELLE O. MOSIER, Case No. 2:20-cv-02323-SJF-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting, particularly with
respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries.

On May 11, 2020, during pre-market hours, Hamilton announced that
it could not timely file its 1Q20 10-Q because of "certain
accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition
of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain
expenditures within the statement of operations at its Mexican
subsidiary." Following these disclosures, Hamilton's stock price
fell $1.03 per share, or 8.99%, to close at $10.43 per share on May
11, 2020.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff and the class purchased or otherwise acquired
Hamilton securities between February 27, 2020, and May 8, 2020.

Hamilton was founded in 1904 and is headquartered in Glen Allen,
Virginia. The Company designs, markets, and distributes small
electric household and specialty housewares appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          PORTNOY LAW FIRM
          8240 Beverly Blvd., Suite 9
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (310) 692-8883
          E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com


HEALTH PLAN: Thuo Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hanna Thuo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEALTH PLAN INTERMEDIARIES HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a
MYBENEFITSKEEPER, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No.
8:20-cv-01278-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla., June 4, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

To gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue,
the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights. To promote its services, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process, according to the complaint. The Defendant
was, and is, aware that its unsolicited prerecorded calls were, and
are, unauthorized as it fails to obtain prior express written
consent before placing those calls to consumers. Ultimately,
consumers are forced to bear the costs of receiving these
unsolicited prerecorded calls.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion
of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily
life of thousands of individuals.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Dallas
County, Texas.

The Defendant is an insurance brokerage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Aaron M. Ahlzadeh, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Office: (786) 289-9471
          Direct: (305) 975-3320
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 aaron@edelsberglaw.com


HKA ENTERPRISES: Sullivan Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLYDE SULLIVAN, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HKA ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:20-cv-01891-TMC (D.S.C., May 18, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid Construction
Manager from approximately 2016 until July 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked over 40
hours in a week, often 60 to 70 hours per workweek. Although
Plaintiff reported the hours he works to Defendant on a regular
basis, Defendant never paid Plaintiff any overtime. Allegedly,
Defendant paid Plaintiff straight-time-for-overtime instead of
compensating him time and half as required by the FLSA for all
overtime worked over 40 hours in a workweek.

HKA Enterprises, LLC provides staffing services for the aerospace
and defense, architecture and engineering, automotive,
construction, information technology, manufacturing,
pharmaceutical, and shipbuilding industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  cfitz@mybackwages.com

                - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-877-8788
          Fax: 713-877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


ISCO INDUSTRIES: Best et al. Sue Over ESOP Losses
-------------------------------------------------
NATHAN BEST, MATTHEW CHMIELEWSKI; AND JAY HICKS, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated participants in the
nowterminated ISCO Industries Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan,
Plaintiffs, v. STEPHEN C. JAMES, JAMES J. KIRCHDORFER, SR.
IRREVOCABLE FAMILY GSST TRUST; JAMES J. KIRCHDORFER, SR. DELAWARE
TRUST; JAMES J. KIRCHDORFER, JR.; JAMES J. KIRCHDORFER, JR. PIPE
REALITY TRUST; PIPE REALITY DELAWARE TRUST; MARK T. KIRCHDORFER;
MARK T. KIRCHDORFER FAMILY GSST TRUST; MARK T. KIRCHDORFER FAMILY
DELAWARE DYNASTY TRUST; and ISCO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00299-JRW (W.D. Ky., April 24, 2020) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, seeking relief relating to losses they incurred in
connection with the sale of stock of ISCO Industries, Inc. ("ISCO")
-- from a now terminated employee stock ownership plan ("ESOP") in
which they were participants -- back to the prior owners of that
stock at a grossly deficient price in a prohibited and imprudent
transaction.

The Defendants were fiduciaries with respect to ESOP because they
exercised discretionary authority respecting management of such
plan, or disposition of its assets, and had discretionary authority
in the administration of the Plan for all practical purposes.

According to the complaint, Defendant James breached his duties
under ERISA. These breaches include but are not limited to the
following: failing to undertake a reasonable, good faith
investigation into the fair market value of the ESOP's holdings in
ISCO stock as of February 14, 2018; to the extent he relied on
Stout Risius Ross' 2017 year-end fair value report, failing to
determine that that report was tainted, as any investigation would
have revealed, and in any event does not reflect the fair market
value of the ESOP's ISCO holdings as of February 14, 2018; failing
to investigate the circumstances of the removal of Wilmington Trust
as Trustee; causing the ESOP to sell its ISCO stock for less than
Fair Market Value on February 14, 2018; failing to conduct a
thorough review of whether the ESOP's sale of ISCO stock-virtually
all of its assets -- was in the best interests of the Plan
participants; and failing to negotiate a transaction at arm's
length in the best interests of all Plan participants.

ISCO Industries, Inc. is a privately held company headquartered in
Louisville, with at least 350 employees at all relevant times. ISCO
operates over thirty locations in the U.S. and abroad and
specializes in an array of customized piping solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Clark C. Johnson, Esq.
            Michael T. Leigh, Esq.
            KAPLAN JOHNSON ABATE & BIRD LLP
            710 W. Main St., 4th Floor
            Louisville, KY 40202
            Telephone: (502) 242-9042
            Email: cjohnson@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com
                   mleigh@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Approval of Amended Settlement Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that certain merchants have
taken an appeal from the District Court's approval of the amended
agreement by the parties seeking monetary relief in the class
action suit related to interchange fees.

A groups of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
class action complaints alleging that Visa and Mastercard, as well
as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit
card interchange fees and enacted related rules in violation of
antitrust laws.

In 2012, the parties initially settled the cases for a cash
payment, a temporary reduction of credit card interchange, and
modifications to certain credit card network rules.

In 2017, after the approval of that settlement was reversed on
appeal, the case was remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

The original class action was divided into two separate actions,
one seeking primarily monetary relief and the other seeking
primarily injunctive relief.

In September 2018, the parties to the class action seeking monetary
relief finalized an agreement which amends and supersedes the prior
settlement agreement.

Pursuant to this settlement, the defendants collectively
contributed an additional $900 million to the approximately $5.3
billion previously held in escrow from the original settlement.

In December 2019, the amended agreement was approved by the
District Court. Certain merchants filed notices of appeal of the
District Court's approval order.

Based on the percentage of merchants that opted out of the amended
class settlement, $700 million has been returned to the defendants
from the settlement escrow in accordance with the settlement
agreement.

The class action seeking primarily injunctive relief continues
separately.

In addition, certain merchants have filed individual actions
raising similar allegations against Visa and Mastercard, as well as
against the Firm and other banks, and some of those actions remain
pending.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to face investigations and lawsuits related to LIBOR and Other
Benchmark Rate matters.

JPMorgan Chase has responded to inquiries from various governmental
agencies and entities around the world relating primarily to the
British Bankers Association's London Interbank Offered Rate
("LIBOR") for various currencies and the European Banking
Federation's Euro Interbank Offered Rate ("EURIBOR").

The Swiss Competition Commission's investigation relating to
EURIBOR, to which the Firm and other banks are subject, continues.


In December 2016, the European Commission issued a decision against
the Firm and other banks finding an infringement of European
antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. The Firm has filed an appeal
of that decision with the European General Court, and that appeal
is pending.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions
related to benchmarks, including U.S. dollar LIBOR during the
period that it was administered by the British Bankers Association
("BBA") and, in a separate consolidated putative class action,
during the period that it was administered by ICE Benchmark
Administration.

These actions have been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial
purposes, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. In these actions, plaintiffs make varying
allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later,
defendants either individually or collectively manipulated various
benchmark rates by submitting rates that were artificially low or
high.

Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or
other financial instruments whose values are affected by changes in
these rates and assert a variety of claims including antitrust
claims seeking treble damages. These actions are in various stages
of litigation.

In actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it
was administered by the BBA, the District Court dismissed certain
claims, including antitrust claims brought by some plaintiffs whom
the District Court found did not have standing to assert such
claims, and permitted certain claims to proceed, including
antitrust, Commodity Exchange Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and common law claims. The plaintiffs whose antitrust
claims were dismissed for lack of standing have filed an appeal.

The District Court granted class certification of antitrust claims
related to bonds and interest rate swaps sold directly by the
defendants and denied class certification motions filed by other
plaintiffs.

In the consolidated putative class action related to the time
period that U.S. dollar LIBOR was administered by ICE Benchmark
Administration, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

The Firm's settlements of putative class actions related to Swiss
franc LIBOR, the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and the Singapore
Swap Offer Rate ("SIBOR"), the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference
Rate, and certain of the putative class actions related to U.S.
dollar LIBOR remain subject to court approval.

In the class actions related to SIBOR and Swiss franc LIBOR, the
District Court concluded that the Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, and plaintiffs' appeals of those decisions are
pending.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Suits over Precious Metals Futures
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend itself in lawsuits related to alleged manipulation of
precious metals futures.

Various authorities, including the Department of Justice's Criminal
Division, are conducting investigations relating to trading
practices in the metals markets and related conduct.

The Firm also is responding to related requests concerning similar
trading-practices issues in markets for other financial
instruments, such as U.S. Treasuries. The Firm continues to
cooperate with these investigations and is currently engaged in
discussions with various regulators about resolving their
respective investigations.

There is no assurance that such discussions will result in
settlements.

Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Firm and certain former employees, alleging a precious
metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in violation
of the Commodity Exchange Act.

Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment and deceptive
acts or practices under the General Business Law of the State of
New York. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in
February 2019.

The Firm is also a defendant in a consolidated action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging monopolization of silver futures in violation of the
Sherman Act.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: To Settle FX Indirect Purchasers' Suit for $10MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company and 11
other defendants have agreed in principle to settle for a total of
$10 million the class action related to Foreign Exchange litigation
that was initiated by purported indirect purchasers.

The company (the Firm) previously reported settlements with certain
government authorities relating to its foreign exchange ("FX")
sales and trading activities and controls related to those
activities.

Among those resolutions, in May 2015, the Firm pleaded guilty to a
single violation of federal antitrust law. In January 2017, the
Firm was sentenced, with judgment entered thereafter and a term of
probation ending in January 2020. The term of probation has
concluded, with the Firm remaining in good standing throughout the
probation period.

The Department of Labor has granted the Firm a five-year exemption
of disqualification that allows the Firm and its affiliates to
continue to rely on the Qualified Professional Asset Manager
exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") until January 2023. The Firm will need to reapply in due
course for a further exemption to cover the remainder of the
ten-year disqualification period. A South Africa Competition
Commission matter is the remaining FX-related governmental inquiry,
and is currently pending before the South Africa Competition
Tribunal.

In August 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted final approval to the Firm's
settlement of a consolidated class action brought by U.S.-based
plaintiffs, which principally alleged violations of federal
antitrust laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign
exchange rates and also sought damages on behalf of persons who
transacted in FX futures and options on futures.

Certain members of the settlement class filed requests to the Court
to be excluded from the class, and certain of them filed a
complaint against the Firm and a number of other foreign exchange
dealers in November 2018.

A number of these actions remain pending. Further, putative class
actions have been filed against the Firm and a number of other
foreign exchange dealers on behalf of certain consumers who
purchased foreign currencies at allegedly inflated rates and
purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments; these actions also
remain pending in the District Court.

In January 2020, the Firm and 11 other defendants agreed in
principle to settle the class action filed by purported indirect
purchasers for a total of $10 million.

That settlement remains subject to negotiation of final
documentation and court approval.

JPMorgan said, "In addition, some FX-related individual and
putative class actions based on similar alleged underlying conduct
have been filed outside the U.S., including in the U.K., Israel and
Australia."

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


KEYCORP: Faces Stark ERISA Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Stark, William Gaff, and Michael Lewin, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the KeyCorp 401(k) Savings Plan v. KeyCorp, the Trust
Oversight Committee, and John Does 1-30, Case No.
2:20-cv-02922-MHW-EPD (N.D. Ohio, June 4, 2020), is brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the
Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties with respect to
the Plan to the detriment of the Plan and its participants and
beneficiaries.

KeyCorp is the sponsor of the Plan, which is an "employee pension
benefit plan." To safeguard retirement plan participants, ERISA
imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon
employers and other plan fiduciaries. These twin fiduciary duties
are "the highest known to the law." Fiduciaries must act "solely in
the interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the
"care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in
managing a plan of similar scope. This includes an obligation to
ensure that expenses of administering the plan are reasonable.

Contrary to these fiduciary duties, the Defendants failed to
monitor and control the Plan's expenses for recordkeeping and
related administrative services, the Plaintiffs allege. They add
that this has resulted in millions of dollars in excessive fees to
the Plan and its participants since the beginning of the statutory
period.

The Plaintiffs were participants in the Plan. The Plaintiffs assert
claims against the Defendants under the ERISA for breaches of the
fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence (Count One), and against
KeyCorp for failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count Two). In
connection with these claims, the Plaintiffs seek to recover all
losses to the Plan resulting from Defendants' fiduciary breaches
and other appropriate relief.

KeyCorp is a bank-based financial services company headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and –

          Paul Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Grace Chanin, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 256-3200
          Email: plukas@nka.com
                 krichter@nka.com
                 bspecht@nka.com
                 gchanin@nka.com


KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Faces Zhu FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum Phillips
& Levy, P.C. The case is styled as Jessica Zhu, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kirschenbaum Phillips &
Levy, P.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-02488 (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., is a debt-collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


LANNETT CO: Securities Suit over Drug Pricing Underway in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company remains a
defendant in a class action suit in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its former officers in the federal court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company,
its former Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial
Officer damaged the purported class by including in the Company's
securities filings false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.  

An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017.

In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company's
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in February 2018.  

In July 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  

In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third
amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint in November 2018.

In May 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint. In July 2019, the Company filed an answer
to the third amended complaint.

Lannett said, "The Company believes it acted in compliance with all
applicable laws and plans to vigorously defend itself from these
claims. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the
suit at this time."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LIFELABS INC: 2 Different Approaches to Class Action Carriage Bids
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranjan K. Agarwal and Adam Zur of Bennett Jones LLP wrote on
JDSupra an article on two different approaches to class action
carriage motions.

The Ontario Superior Court recently released two separate carriage
motion decisions (MacBrayne v LifeLabs Inc., 2020 ONSC 2674 and Del
Giudice v Thompson, 2020 ONSC 2676), which adopt different
approaches to deciding between overlapping class actions. Both
decisions deal with class proceedings stemming from large-scale
data breaches. In Canada, when there are overlapping class actions
in a province or court, the court will decide which plaintiff and
class counsel should have "carriage" of the action based on a broad
range of criteria.

In December 2019, LifeLabs announced that hackers had breached
their data systems, compromising personal information of about 15
million patients. At least 13 proposed class actions were
immediately started: four in Ontario and nine in British Columbia.
In Ontario, class counsel organized themselves into three
consortiums.

In deciding the carriage motion, Justice Belobaba emphasized that
courts must search for the factors that are determinative in
deciphering which carriage proposal is in the best interests of the
class. Here, it boiled down to two factors: overall approach and
proposed fee arrangement. As to overall approach, Justice Belobaba
preferred the filing of a single national class action, which he
considered more sensible in comparison to filing two parallel class
actions (one in Ontario for the eastern provinces and the other in
British Columbia for the western provinces). That said, the motion
was essentially decided based on each consortium's proposed fee
arrangement. Justice Belobaba awarded carriage to the proposed
class counsel that had the most cost-effective (i.e., least
expensive) fee arrangement for class members.

The decision suggests that in some cases, carriage motions may be
decided by awarding carriage to the lowest bidder. Justice Belobaba
noted that the experience and resources of the competing law firms
was a relevant, but not determinative factor, as each law firm was
experienced and competent. In that case, courts may rely on a
reverse auction to decide carriage motions: who can provide their
services at the lowest cost to the class members?

In July 2019, Capital One disclosed that its information technology
systems had been hacked. The personal and confidential information
of an estimated six million Canadian customers was compromised.

Justice Perell decided carriage between two different consortia
based on case theory. Justice Perell awarded carriage to the
proposed class counsel who had named as defendants Amazon (which
owned the servers that stored Capital One's data) and GitHub (a
website operator that published some of the personal information
that had been hacked). Justice Perell acknowledged that although it
is too early to tell whether Amazon and GitHub should be parties to
the litigation, it is arguable that they are wrongdoers who should
be held to account.

Despite being awarded carriage, Justice Perell scolded successful
class counsel for delivering their motion materials 18 days late,
in violation of his direction. Justice Perell said that he would
consider awarding costs against class counsel personally for their
failure to comply: "As noted above, although the Del Giudice Action
has been granted carriage, I will consider, if requested, costs in
whole or in part against counsel personally in the Del Giudice
Action (not to be a charged or passed onto the Class Members) for
the failure to comply with my case management direction."

Justice Perell also criticized the parties' materials noting, in
part, that they were "conceited, pompously preachy, wanting in
objectivity, and grossly overstated."

Justice Perell, who is one of four designated class actions judges
in Toronto, recommended that "putative Class Counsel retained
external genuinely independent counsel to both: (a) professionally
prepare the material for the motion; and (b) professionally argue
the motion.  [GN]



LOS ANGELES, CA: BLM LA Files Civil Rights Suit in C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Los
Angeles, et al. The case is styled as Black Lives Matter Los
Angeles, CANGRESS doing business as: Los Angeles Community Action
Network, Linus Shentu, Weston Rowland, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons v. City of Los Angeles, a
municipal entity, Chief Michel Moore, Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
          Katherine Robinson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
          725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: (310) 393-3055
          Fax: (310) 451-3858
          Email: carolsobellaw@gmail.com
                 katherine.robinson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          Lindsay Battles, Esq.
          KAYE MCLANE BEDNARSKI AND LITT LLP
          975 East Green Street
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Phone: (626) 844-7660
          Fax: (626) 844-7670
          Email: blitt@kmbllaw.com
                 lbattles@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Bijan Esfandiari, Esq.
          Monique Amanda Alarcon, Esq.
          Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
          Robert Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM HELDLUND ARISTEL AND GOLDMAN PC
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 207-3233
          Fax: (310) 820-7444
          Email: besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com
                 malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com
                 pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com
                 rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com

               - and -

          Colleen Flynn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 252-9444
          Fax: (213) 252-0091
          Email: cflynnlaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Cynthia Anderson Barker, Esq.
          NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-3246
          Fax: (213) 252-0091
          Email: cablaw@hotmail.com

               - and -

          John Clay Washington, Esq.
          Paul L Hoffman, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN AND ZELDES LLP
          11543 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (310) 396-0731
          Fax: (310) 399-7040
          Email: jwashington@sshhzlaw.com
                 hoffpaul@aol.com

               - and -

          Jorge Gonzalez, Esq.
          JORGE GONAZLEZ LAW OFFICE APC
          2485 Huntington Drive, Suite 238
          San Marino, CA 91108
          Phone: (626) 382-3081
          Fax: (213) 598-3278
          Email: jgonzalezlawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          Matthew D Strugar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR
          3425 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2015
          Phone: (323) 696-2299
          Email: matthewstrugar@gmail.com

               - and -

          Olu K Orange, Esq.
          ORANGE LAW OFFICES PC
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 736-9900
          Fax: (213) 417-8800
          Email: o.orange@orangelawoffices.com


LYFT INC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Hinson Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FITZGERALD HINSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. LYFT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02209-MHC (N.D.
Ga., May 22, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying Lyft drivers as
independent contractors.

The Plaintiff contends that Lyft Drivers lack discretion in the
performance of their duties on behalf of Lyft and have no
independence in performing their work with Lyft. He adds that Lyft
Drivers are able to secure fares only through Lyft's mobile
application, which governs every aspect of Lyft Drivers'
transportation services for Lyft.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that his rights and the rights of
the putative Class were violated, an award of unpaid wages
(including overtime), award of liquidated damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attendant penalties, and an award of attorneys'
fees and costs to make himself and the putative Class whole for the
damages they suffered, and to ensure that they and future workers
will not be subjected by the Defendant to such illegal conduct in
the future.

The Plaintiff works for Lyft as a Lyft driver.

Lyft owns and operates the Lyft ride sharing service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frederick C. Dawkins, Esq.
          FREDERICK C. DAWKINS, ESQ., P.C.
          3379 Peachtree Road, Suite 555
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: 404 974 9543
          E-mail: fdawkins@fcd-law.com


M STREET: Fenwick Seeks Proper Pay for Restaurant Servers
---------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW FENWICK, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. M STREET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; KAYNE PRIME,
LLC; MOTO, LLC; 1120, LLC d/b/a SAINT AÑEJO; LIME, LLC d/b/a
TAVERN MIDTOWN; VIRAGO, LLC; and WK, LLC d/b/a WHISKEY KITCHEN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00403 (M.D. Tenn., May 13, 2020) is a
collective action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself
and all similarly situated employees, to remedy violations by the
Defendants under the  Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

The collective action seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages for
Fenwick, as well as all similarly situated current and former
tipped employees who worked for the M Street Group within 3 years
prior to the filing of this Complaint.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to satisfy the
requirements for utilizing the tip credit to meet their
minimum-wage and overtime obligations to their tipped employees by:
(1) retaining a portion of tips earned by their employees each
shift; (2) shifting business expenses to tipped employees by
requiring them to purchase uniforms and equipment; (3) requiring
tipped employees to share tips with non-tipped employees who have
no customer interaction; (4) requiring tipped employees to perform
compensable work without compensation; and (5) requiring tipped
employees to spend more than 20% of their shifts performing
non-tip-producing work while paid at the lower, tipped hourly
rate.

Plaintiff Fenwick worked as a server at Tavern from approximately
January 2019 until February 2019.

M Street Entertainment, LLC owns and operates six restaurants in
Nashville, Tennessee specifically Kayne Prime, Moto, Saint Añejo,
Tavern, Virago, and Whiskey Kitchen.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
          Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                 teeples@yezbaklaw.com

                    - and -

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                 jfrank@barrettjohnston.com


MACON INC: Fails to Pay Overtime for Welders, Hughes Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN HUGHES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MACON, INC. and KATHY MATTHEWS, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01286-E (N.D. Tex., May 18, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt welder.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week, oftentimes 55 to 60
hours per week. Because Defendant improperly classified Plaintiff,
Defendant failed to pay them overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours at one and one-half times of their
regular rate. Instead, they were paid by Defendant straight time
for all hours worked.

Kathy Matthews controls the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's
work.

Macon, Inc. operates a structural steel fabrication and erection
company specializing in residential and commercial structural steel
projects. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          2901 Bee Cave Rd., Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Tel: (512) 782-0567
          Fax: (512) 782-0605
          Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


MDL 2950: Transfer of 12 PPP Agent Fees Suits to N.D. Ga. Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Alliant CPA Group LLC v.
Bank of America Corp., et al., Case No., 1:20-cv-02026-LMM (N.D.
Ga.), moves the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an
order transferring all 12 currently-filed cases of related actions
filed concurrently, as well as any subsequent "tag along" cases
involving similar facts or claims, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia and before the Honorable Leigh
Martin May for coordinated or consolidated proceedings in the
multidistrict litigation titled In re: Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP) Agent Fees Litigation, MDL 2950.

The PPP Agent Plaintiffs claim that the PPP Lender Defendants have
wrongly withheld and converted mandatory fees (the
Agent Fees) paid to them by the U.S. Government and owed to the
plaintiffs as PPP Agents as required for helping small businesses
secure PPP loans. All related actions involve common questions of
law and fact that arise from the Defendants' failure to pay these
statutorily-mandated Agent Fees they are required to pay pursuant
to the Small Business Administration Regulations.

On March 27, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the CARES Act was signed into federal law. As part
of the CARES Act, the $349 billion PPP loan program was
established. In late April 2020, the Government added an additional
$310 billion in PPP funding, bringing the total PPP funds available
to lend to $659 billion. The PPP was created as a Main Street loan
program to provide American small and medium-sized businesses with
two and a half months of financial assistance, with some or all of
those loans being forgivable if utilized for the defined purposes.

The 12 lawsuits are:

   -- Leigh King Norton & Underwood LLC v. Regions Financial
      Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00591 (N.D. Ala.);

   -- Panda Accounting LLC v. Academy Bank NA, et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-00985 (D. Ariz.);

   -- American Video Duplicating Inc., et al. v. Citigroup Inc.,
      et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal.);

   -- American Video Duplicating Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada,
      et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04036 (C.D. Cal.);

   -- Brunner Accounting Group v. SVB Financial Group, et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-04235 (C.D. Cal.);

   -- ImpAcct, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al.,
      Case No. 1:20-cv-01344 (D. Colo.);

   -- SPORT & WHEAT CPA PA v. SERVISFIRST BANK INC., et al.,
      Case No. 3:20-cv-05425 (N.D. Fla.);

   -- Alliant CPA Group, LLC v. Bank of America, Corp., et al.,
      Case No. 1:20-cv-02026 (N.D. Ga.);

   -- A.D. Sims, LLC v. Wintrust Financial Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 1:20-cv-02644 (N.D. Ill.);

   -- David S. Lowry, CPA, LTD v. U.S. Bancorp, et al.,
      Case No. 1:20-cv-00348 (S.D. Ohio);

   -- Hallockshannon, PC v. Citizens & Northern Corp., et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-00714 (W.D. Pa.); and

   -- Panda Group PC v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.,
      Case No. 4:20-cv-00045 (D. Utah).

The Movant is represented by:

          Mark Geragos, Esq.
          Ben Meiselas, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS, PC
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
          E-mail: mark@geragos.com
                  ben@geragos.com

               - and -
          Michael S. Popok, Esq.
          Mitchell G. Mandell, Esq.
          ZUMPANO PATRICIOS & POPOK, PLLC
          417 Fifth Avenue, Suite 826
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 381-9999
          Facsimile: (212) 320-0332
          E-mail: mpopok@zplaw.com
                  mmandell@zplaw.com

               - and -

          James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
          Travis Lynch, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: 404-996-0869
          Facsimile: 205-326-3332
          E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
                  tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Michael Laird, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  michael.laird@zimmreed.com


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces Warsame Suit Over Denied Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noridin Warsame, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Metropolitan Transportation Network, Inc., Case No.
0:20-cv-01318-ECT-ECW (D. Minn., June 5, 2020), is brought for
damages and other relief alleging that it intentionally denied its
school bus drivers compensation for hours worked, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act.

The Defendant did this by making changes to drivers' recorded time
to avoid paying them for their actual and total hours worked,
according to the complaint. The Defendant maintains a policy and
practice of editing drivers' time worked, particularly during
winter months, to reduce the time recorded. As a result of the
Defendant's intentional and illegal pay practices, drivers were
deprived of straight time and overtime compensation for their hours
worked in violation of federal and state law.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a driver in August
2017.

The Defendant contracts with the Minneapolis Public School
District, along with other districts and charter schools to provide
student transportation within the state of Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 256-3200
          Fax (612) 215-6870
          Email: fisher@nka.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Myhre Suit Over Sale of Dicamba Herbicide
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Myhre, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, BASF SE, and BASF
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00054 (N.D. Iowa, May 22, 2020),
seeks damages as a result of the design, development, promotion,
and sale of a genetically engineered trait conferring resistance to
dicamba expressly for the purpose of spraying dicamba herbicide
over the top of growing plants as part of a dicamba-based crop
system.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knew that dicamba,
highly volatile and prone to drift, is ruinous to susceptible
non-dicamba resistant plants and crops. Not only did the Defendants
release their dangerous system onto the market, creating high risk
of harm, but everything they did and failed to do increased that
risk, all but ensuring damage to non-dicamba resistant plants and
crops, the Plaintiff says. That damage in fact served the
Defendants' purpose of pressuring farmers to purchase
dicamba-resistant seed out of self-protection. The Defendants
created and carried out a scheme of ecological disaster for their
financial gain and to the detriment of the very persons they knew
would be harmed, he adds.

John Myhre farmed soyabeans in Dickinson and Emmet County, Iowa,
that were damaged by dicamba.

Monsanto designs, develops, manufactures, licenses, and sells
biotechnology, chemicals, and other agricultural products,
including herbicides and seed genetically modified to produce crops
resistant thereto.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ward A. (Sam) Rouse, Esq.
          ROUSE LAW, PC
          4940 Pleasant Street
          West Des Moines, IA 50266
          Telephone: (515) 223-9000
          Facsimile: (866) 223-9005
          E-mail: wardrouse@rouselaw.us

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: 480 348-6400
          Facsimile: 612 341-0844
          E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com


MONTHLY AUTO: Nelson Sues Over Aggressive Unsolicited Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MONTHLY AUTO SALES, INC. D/B/A WATSON AUTO GROUP, a
Texas corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-00581-O (N.D. Tex., June 5,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in aggressive
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process, according to the complaint. The Defendant's prerecorded
telemarketing calls constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase, sell, or investment in property,
goods, and/or services, i.e., selling the Plaintiff one of the
Defendant's vehicles. At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide
the Defendant with her express consent to be contacted using an
ATDS.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion
of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily
life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the Class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a citizen of the State
of Texas residing in Tarrant County, Texas.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelica M. Gentile, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and –

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.533.4092
          Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and –

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          14 NE First Ave., 10th Floor
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: 786.351.8709
          Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com


NATIONAL CREDIT: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit
Adjusters, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Brandon Martinez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Credit Adjusters, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:20-at-00400 (E.D. Cal., June 4, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

National Credit Adjusters, L.L.C. (NCA) provides financial
services. The Company offers account receivables services and helps
creditors liquidate these receivables through extensive training,
innovation, automation, and analytics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


NUSR-ET STEAKHOUSE: Wins Summary Judgment in Suit Over Servers Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Mora, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
ruled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida that that 18% service charge on a Brickell restaurant's
check isn't a tip for the server.

The case hinged on whether the service charge on a restaurant bill
counted as a tip for the service staff at Nusr-Et Steakhouse in
Brickell, who were seeking minimum wage plus overtime. The case
turned on whether the service charge was the sole compensation for
the service staff as dictated by federal law.

Attorneys Jonathan A. Beckerman, Miguel A. Morel and Joelle C.
Sharman, who are partners at Lewis Brisbois in Fort Lauderdale and
Atlanta, prevailed for their client -- Nusr-Et Steakhouse and its
owner, Nusret Gokce, commonly known as Salt Bae after his seasoning
technique became an Internet meme -- in a class-action lawsuit that
sought unpaid wages.

One of the main challenges with lawsuits involving Nusr-Et
Steakhouse is that the international restaurant chain has
operations in the United States and around the world. That means
employees in several countries may have been class members. That
factor caused extensive discovery requests for Beckerman and his
team.
Commercial Litigation & Arbitration Forum 2020Event For senior
dispute resolution professionals to network and engage through open
debate, panels, expert speakers & breakout sessions

"We were getting overwhelmed with the amount of paper documents
that these guys were just trying to throw at us to make facts and
issues that didn't exist," Beckerman said. "Thousands of pages of
documents. Any document that was ever generated with the company's
financial picture, they wanted."

The lead plaintiff in the case, Melissa Compere, was a server at
the Nusr-et restaurant at 999 Brickell Ave., Miami.

Her attorney Lowell J. Kuvin, a partner at the Law Office of Lowell
J. Kuvin in Miami, did not respond to a request for comment

Compere argued that the 18% service charge included on a customer's
dinner receipt was a tip, and that she was also entitled to be paid
both the minimum hourly wage plus overtime for any week in which
she worked more than 40 hours.

U.S. District Court Judge Raag Singhal disagreed and ruled in the
restaurant's favor, granting its motion for summary judgment.

"A lot of the service staff were paid in excess of six figures per
year, so they weren't getting paid an hourly rate and weren't
getting paid overtime," Beckerman said. "They were claiming the
service charges were 'tips,' which would be a violation of the law
if that was the case."

Beckerman said having the service charge distributed to restaurant
workers as their sole compensation is a "completely legal
practice," citing federal law -- the Retail Sales Exemption under
the Fair Labor Standards Act -- that Beckerman argued allows an
employer not to pay overtime. "If they pay workers enough for
commission, no minimum wage," he said.

There are three main rules to exempt an employer from overtime,
according to section 7(i) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. First,
an employee must earn at least one and one-half times the federal
minimum wage. The second rule is that the employee must earn more
than half of his or her salary in commissions for a period of not
less than one month. The third requirement is the employee must
work for a retail or service establishment.

Beckerman argued that the service charge was distributed to the
staff at the restaurant based upon a point system, and that was all
of the compensation they received. For instance, Beckerman said, if
an employee was working as a person who picks up plates and served
water, that person might get one point. The main server who took
the orders and brought wine to the table would earn three points.

"There's a formula at the end of the night," Beckerman said. "They
identify how many people were working, the points they were
entitled to and distribute the money based on that payment system.
So each point entitled them to a percentage of the overall proceeds
from the service charges. [The service people] divide up the
overall proceeds from the service charges."  [GN]



OKLAHOMA: Knox Wants Refund of Fees After COVID-19 School Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Eric Knox, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, Case No.
CJ-2020-2383 (Okla. Dist., May 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of
all people, who paid fees to cover the costs of services and/or
activities for Spring 2020 academic semester at the 25 colleges and
universities overseen by Oklahoma Regents, and who, because of
Oklahoma Regents' and the Universities' response and policies
relating to COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefits of the services
and activities for which their fees were paid, without having the
full, prorated amount of those fees refunded to them.

In March 2020, Oklahoma Regents and the Universities announced that
because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Universities would
transition all Classes to an online format. Students, who lived on
campus were either forced or encouraged to move out of their
on-campus housing. In addition to moving all classes to an online
format, the Universities shut down most on-campus services and
stopped providing the services and activities for which the
Plaintiff and the other Class members paid fees, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that despite ending on-campus services and
activities for the rest of the Spring 2020 semester and effectively
closing dorms and ending meal plan service, Oklahoma Regents has
refused to refund to students and their families the unused
portions of the fees that they each paid cover the costs of the
services and activities, which are no longer available to
students.

Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education is the agency of the
government of Oklahoma that serves as the governing body of the
Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, which is the largest
provider of higher education in the state of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Thetford, Esq.
          Evan M. McLemore, Esq.
          Grant B. Thetford, Esq.
          LEVINSON, SMITH & HUFFMAN, P.C.
          1743 East 71st Street
          Tulsa, OK 74136
          Telephone: 918-492-4433
          Facsimile: 918-492-6224
          E-mail: j.thetford@lsh-law-firm.com
                  evan.mclemore@lsh-law-firm.com
                  Grant.Thetford@elsh-law-firm.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-214-7900
          Facsimile: 312-253-1445
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                  lreasonsadicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Miller, Esq.
          MATTHEW S. MILLER LLC
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312-741-1085
          Facsimile: 312-741-1010
          E-mail: mmiller@msmillerlaw.com


ONE WIRELESS: Teplitsky Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
BORIS TEPLITSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ONE WIRELESS WORLD, INC., an Idaho corporation, Case
No. CACE-20-008499 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 22, 2020), alleges
that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part,
by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff contends that to solicit new paying clients, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for
privacy rights of the recipients of those messages. He adds that
the Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be
sent to his and Class Members' cellular telephones, causing them
injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant.

The Defendant is an internet service provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33 132
          Telephone: 305 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile. com
                  gberg@shamisgentile. com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33 180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


OSA CONSULTING GROUP: Faces Parker FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OSA Consulting Group,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Tabitha Parker, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. OSA Consulting Group,
LLC, Freeh Group International Solutions, LLC, Trans Union, LLC,
Case No. 8:20-cv-01298-VMC-AAS (M.D. Fla., June 5, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

OSA Consulting Group LLC was founded in 2016. The Company's line of
business includes providing business consulting services on a
contract and fee basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Fax: (757) 930-3662
          Email: craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33602, Suite 300
          Phone: (813) 337-7992
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com


PARQUE TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Mismarketed Condos
---------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Milton, writing for The Real Deal, report that for the 10th
time this year, condo buyers at Parque Towers in Sunny Isles Beach,
Florida are suing the developer over allegations of selling units
that were smaller than allegedly advertised.

The latest suit, seeking class action, was filed by lawyer David
Reiner on behalf of class representative Joseph Isacoff. It accuses
developer J. Milton & Associates of misrepresenting the actual size
of units in sales and promotional materials for the luxury project
at 300-330 Sunny Isles Boulevard.

Reiner also represents plaintiffs in other lawsuits in Miami-Dade
Circuit Court against the developer, including buyers Josh and
Michelle Kurzban, who recently lost a key ruling in their case that
could have implications for the new class action litigation.

"Parque Towers advertised, and is still advertising, units in the
development as being 20 percent to 30 percent larger than they
actually are," Reiner said. "These are not just simple contract
disputes, they are violations of Florida laws designed to protect
every consumer who buys pre-construction condominium units in
Florida."

Reiner said his law firm has also asked the Florida Attorney
General and the general counsel for the Florida Division of
Business and Professional Regulation to join the class action
lawsuit.

Robert Frankel, the attorney representing J. Milton development
entity and defendant Parque Towers Developer LLC, said the class
action lawsuit has no merit.

"We don't expect this case to go anywhere," Frankel said. "This
plaintiff is looking at serious attorney fees coming his way when
he loses this case."

According to the suit, more than 200 buyers believed they were
buying units measuring 1,860 square feet and 2,500 square feet,
respectively, in the two-tower, 320-unit project. One of the towers
is still under construction.

Instead, at closings, the developer submitted surveyor
certifications showing the units were approximately 1,560 square
feet and 1,900 square feet, respectively, according to the suit.
Reiner said the class action seeks $80 million in damages, which
represents the value of the square footage that was allegedly
shaved off.

"This type of false advertising was more prevalent in
pre-construction condominium sales during the last real estate
crash, and most developers have been much more forthcoming in their
promotional materials lately," Reiner said. "But Parque Towers
continues to misrepresent the actual unit sizes."

In December, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Valerie R. Manno Schurr
granted partial summary judgment for the Kurzbans, who claimed they
were entitled to nixing the purchase and wanted a refund of their
$597,500 deposit. The couple alleged the unit they purchased was 25
percent less than the 2,500 square feet they had been shown in
marketing materials. As a result, they paid $634 per square foot
instead of $478 per square foot for the unit, their lawsuit
claims.

But on May 6, Schurr reversed herself and tossed out her ruling in
the Kurzbans' favor after Parque Towers Developer requested she
reconsider her decision. Frankel noted a different judge had struck
down a motion for summary judgment by another buyer suing the
developer.

"I hope Mr. Reiner has the decency to tell his clients in the class
action that he suffered a major setback in the Kurzban case,"
Frankel said. "The fact is this lawsuit is dead on arrival."

Still, J. Milton may be tied up in litigation over unit sizes at
Parque Towers for some time. Since January, 10 lawsuits have been
filed against the developer, including the class action complaint.
There are another 12 pending lawsuits that were filed between May
2018 and October 2019.   [GN]



PARQUE TOWERS: Unlawfully Markets Condo Units, Isaacoff Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ISAACOFF, individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. PARQUE TOWERS DEVELOPERS, LLC a Florida limited
liability company, Case No. 107887506 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty.,
May 22, 2020), arises from Parque Towers' alleged wrongful conduct
of making unlawful material misrepresentations relating to the
marketing and sale of units in a condominium development in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, known as Parque Towers Condominium, in
violation of the Florida Condominium Act and the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Specifically, the Defendant marketed pre-construction and sold (and
is still marketing and selling) units in the Parque Towers
Condominium project, as having substantially and materially greater
square footage that those units as constructed actually have, the
Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant's floor plans and promotional
materials overstated and overstate the unit square footage for
units in the Parque Towers Condominium project by more than 130,000
square feet, which, at a conservative estimated value of $600.00
per square foot, equals nearly $80 million, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant is relying on unlawful
general waivers in their purchase and sale agreements to disclaim
the misrepresentations. This is a classic bait and switch fraud
scheme, he adds.

The Plaintiff purchased, preconstruction, condominium units in a
project built by the Defendant in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Defendant is a developer and developed a condominium project in
Sunny Isles, Florida, named Parque Towers Condominium.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Reiner, Esq.
          REINER & REINER, P.A.
          9100 So. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 901
          Miami, FL 33156-7815
          Telephone: (305) 670-8282
          Facsimile: (305) 670-8989
          E-mail: dpr@reinerslaw.com
                  eservice@reinerslaw.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Appeal from Dismissal of Sgarlata Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal from a
ruling in the class action suit entitled, Sgarlata v. PayPal
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06956-EMC, is still
pending.

In November 2017, the company announced that it had suspended the
operations of TIO Networks ("TIO") as part of an ongoing
investigation of security vulnerabilities of the TIO platform. On
December 1, 2017, the company announced that it had identified
evidence of unauthorized access to TIO's network, including
locations that stored personal information of some of TIO's
customers and customers of TIO billers and the potential compromise
of personally identifiable information for approximately 1.6
million customers.

The company received a number of governmental inquiries, including
from state attorneys general, and the company may be subject to
additional governmental inquiries and investigations in the future.


In addition, on December 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-06956-EMC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and Hamed Shahbazi,
the former chief executive officer of TIO alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

The initial complaint alleged that Defendants made false or
misleading statements or failed to disclose that TIO's data
security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its users, those vulnerabilities
threatened continued operation of TIO's platform, the Company's
revenues derived from TIO services were thus unsustainable, and
consequently, the Company overstated the benefits of the TIO
acquisition, and, as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class
of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between February 14, 2017 through December 1, 2017 and sought
damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief.

On March 16, 2018, the Court appointed two new plaintiffs, not the
original plaintiff who filed the case, as interim co-lead
plaintiffs in the case and appointed two law firms as interim
co-lead counsel.

On June 13, 2018, the interim co-lead plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, which named TIO Networks ULC, TIO Networks USA,
Inc., and John Kunze (at that time, the Company's Vice President,
Global Consumer Products and Xoom) as additional defendants. The
first amended complaint was purportedly brought on behalf of all
persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's
securities between November 10, 2017 and December 1, 2017. The
amended complaint alleged that the Company's and TIO's November 10,
2017 announcement of the suspension of TIO's operations was false
and misleading because the announcement only disclosed security
vulnerabilities on TIO's platform, rather than an actual security
breach that Defendants were allegedly aware of at the time of the
announcement.

Defendants' filed their motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint on July 13, 2018 and the Court granted the motion,
without prejudice, on December 13, 2018.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 14, 2019.
The second amended complaint alleges substantially the same theory
of liability as the first amended complaint, but no longer names
Hamed Shabazi as a defendant.

The remaining Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on March 15, 2019, and a hearing was held on July
16, 2019. The court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss with
prejudice on September 18, 2019; plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal.

PayPal said, "We may be subject to additional litigation relating
to TIO's data security platform or the suspension of TIO's
operations in the future."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

PayPal Holdings, Inc. operates as a technology platform and digital
payments company that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf
of consumers and merchants worldwide. PayPal Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


PFIZER INC: Consolidated Class Suit v. Array BioPharma Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit related to Array BioPharma's
NRAS-mutant melanoma program.

In November 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that
Array, which the company acquired in July 2019 and is the company's
wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of its former officers
violated federal securities laws in connection with certain
disclosures made, or omitted, by Array regarding the NRAS-mutant
melanoma program.

In March 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single
proceeding.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defends EpiPen Antitrust Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend
antitrust class suits related to EpiPen.

Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in
various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against
Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King Pharmaceuticals LLC (King) and
Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. (Meridian), and/or various
entities affiliated with Mylan N.V. (Mylan), and Mylan Chief
Executive Officer, Heather Bresch.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide
classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of
the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the
cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct.

In August 2017, a similar lawsuit brought in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a purported class
of direct purchaser plaintiffs against Pfizer, King, Meridian and
Mylan was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

In February 2020, a similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas against Pfizer, King, Meridian and
the Mylan entities on behalf of a purported U.S. nationwide class
of direct purchaser plaintiffs who purchased EpiPen devices
directly from the defendants (the 2020 Lawsuit).

Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs in these actions
generally allege that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of
patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic
EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state
antitrust laws.

At least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan violated
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Plaintiffs also filed various federal antitrust, state consumer
protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to
conduct attributable solely to, Mylan and/or its affiliates
regarding EpiPen.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen
since 2009.

In August 2017, all of these actions, except for the 2020 Lawsuit,
were consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in a
Multi-District Litigation (In re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection,
USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785)
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with other
EpiPen-related actions against Mylan and/or its affiliates to which
Pfizer, King and Meridian are not parties.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Settlement in Hormone Therapy Suit Wins Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that the parties have reached an agreement,
and obtained preliminary court approval, to resolve the Hormone
Therapy Consumer class action lawsuit for $200 million.

A certified consumer class action is pending against Wyeth Holdings
LLC (Wyeth) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California based on the alleged off-label marketing of its hormone
therapy products.

The case was originally filed in December 2003. The class consists
of California consumers who purchased Wyeth's hormone-replacement
products between January 1995 and January 2003 and who do not seek
personal injury damages therefrom.

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including a full
refund of the purchase price.

In March 2020, the parties reached an agreement, and obtained
preliminary court approval, to resolve this matter for $200
million.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHOENIX TREE: Howard G. Smith Notes of June 26 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited (NYSE:
DNK). Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited (NYSE: DNK)

IPO: January 22, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 26, 2020

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was false
and/or misleading because it failed to disclose: (a) that Phoenix
had received customer complaints and negative press regarding
questionable business conduct before the IPO, including its
widespread and notorious practice of deceptively inducing renters
to procure loans whose proceeds financed the Company's business and
operations; (b) that competition in the residential rental market
in China had suffered at the time of the IPO as the coronavirus
ravaged the very locations where Phoenix primarily operated,
including Wuhan; (c) that Phoenix's technological capabilities were
unable to enable the Company to overcome the complications and
erosion of business resulting from the spread of the coronavirus
throughout China at the time of the IPO; and (d) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Phoenix was positioned no differently than its
competitors in managing the fallout from customer complaints or
adverse implications stemming from the coronavirus in China.

To be a member of the class action, you need not take any action at
this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action
and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to
learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          Howard G. Smith, Esquire
          Tel: 215-638-4847
               888-638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/[GN]


PINNACLE ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Walker Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PINNACLE ELECTRIC, INC., and TONY CARLIN, Case No.
4:20-cv-00713-JM (E.D. Ark., June 4, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorney's
fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
proper minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated electricians worked over forty
hours per week on a regular, typical basis, according to the
complaint. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly
situated Electricians an overtime premium for all hours worked over
forty in a week. The Plaintiff was and is entitled to lawful
minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime wages for all hours
worked over 40 per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Electrician from
2015 until January 2020.

Pinnacle Electric, Inc., is a domestic, for-profit
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Hoyt, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: blake@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


PRIMERO AUTO: Riquenes Seeks Regular & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIO A. RIQUENES and other similarly situated individuals v.
PRIMERO AUTO PARTS, INC. and EMILIO BRUSCANTINI, individually, Case
No. 1:20-cv-22167-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 25, 2020), seeks to recover
damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked more than 40 hours every week
period, but he was paid the same salary regardless of the number of
hours paid. He adds that he was not paid for overtime hours as
established by the FLSA.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff from August 1, 2016, through
May 16, 2020. The Plaintiff was employed as a warehouse and
maintenance employee performing the same or similar duties as that
of those other similarly situated employees.

Primero is a direct importer and a wholesale distributor of
aftermarket auto-parts. The Company specializes in aftermarket
collision parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          PALMA LAW GROUP
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PRINCESS CRUISE: Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuits Over COVID Fears
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Princess Cruise
Line, in its first substantive motion filed over COVID-19 lawsuits,
sought to dismiss 13 cases brought on behalf of more than 40
passengers suing for emotional distress. Princess Cruises says that
U.S. Supreme Court case law prohibits the plaintiffs, none of whom
contracted COVID-19, from suing for fear of exposure to the
coronavirus.

Allowing cruise ship passengers to sue over emotional distress
because they could have been exposed to the COVID-19 pandemic would
"open the door to open-ended liability," according to Princess
Cruise Line Ltd. in a court filing.

The motion to dismiss, filed in 13 cases brought on behalf of more
than 40 passengers, is the first substantive response that Princess
Cruises has filed in court since the coronavirus prompted the
filing of dozens of lawsuits. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1997
decision in Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley, Princess
Cruises says that case law prohibits the plaintiffs, none of whom
contracted COVID-19, from suing for fear of exposure to the
coronavirus.

Such an "unprecedented theory of liability for emotional distress"
could unleash lawsuits against all types of businesses, wrote
Jeffrey Maltzman, of Maltzman & Partners in Coral Gables, Florida,
who represents Princess Cruises.

"If accepted, plaintiffs' theory would open the door to open-ended
liability for every business, school, church, and municipality
across America, stalling economic recovery in the wake of the
COVID-19 pandemic and complicating the ability of businesses to
reopen," he wrote. "If individuals in plaintiffs' situation can
recover, businesses, school, churches and other venues across
America will be forced to keep their doors closed long after state
stay-at-home orders are lifted, lest they risk crushing liability
to each and every one of their invitees for emotional distress,
based on the mere possibility of infection, because some employee
or other current or past customer of the business was later
discovered to have the virus."

The motion comes as businesses across the country, reopening after
months of closures imposed by state and local officials to curb the
spread of COVID-19, have lobbied for protections from liability.

Both Maltzman and plaintiffs' attorney Debi Chalik, of Chalik &
Chalik in Plantation, who filed the 13 cases, declined to comment.

Princess Cruises faces a host of lawsuits over COVID-19 exposure on
several of its cruise ships, including the Grand Princess,
quarantined in March off the coast of California. The plaintiffs in
the 13 lawsuits subject to the dismissal motion had traveled on
that Hawaiian voyage, after which 21 passengers and crew tested
positive for the coronavirus and two died.

In addition to the lawsuits for emotional distress, Princess
Cruises faces wrongful death claims on behalf of passengers who
died from COVID-19 and at least one class action on behalf of more
than 2,000 passengers on the Grand Princess.  Lawyers recently
filed an amended class action, originally brought by nine
passengers, that now has 60 named plaintiffs. A shareholder also
filed a class action against Carnival Corp., the parent company of
Princess Cruises, last month.

In a motion, Princess Cruises relied on the Metro-North decision,
which found that the plaintiff could not sue for emotional distress
from potential exposure to a disease unless or until he or she
"manifests symptoms of a disease."

"The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed this rule precisely
to avoid the oppressive societal costs that would occur if claims
like plaintiffs' could go forward," Maltzman wrote. "Mere anxiety
or fear about their health, as is alleged by plaintiffs, is legally
insufficient to support a claim for emotional distress in a fear of
illness case." [GN]



QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Metzner Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoey Metzner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00784-KAD (D.
Conn., June 5, 2020), is brought on behalf of those who did not
receive the full value of the services for which they paid, did not
receive the benefits of in-person instruction, and have lost the
benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss and are
entitled to recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted,
and attorney's fees and costs.

Despite sending students home and closing its campus(es), the
Defendant continues to charge for tuition, fees, and/or room and
board as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap the financial
benefit of millions of dollars from students, according to the
complaint. The Defendant does so despite students' complete
inability to continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and
dormitories, or avail themselves of school programs and events. So
while students enrolled and paid the Defendant for a comprehensive
academic experience, the Defendant instead offers the Plaintiff
something far less: a limited online experience presented by Google
or Zoom, void of face-to-face faculty and peer interaction,
separated from program resources, and barred from facilities vital
to study. The Plaintiff did not bargain for such an experience.

While some colleges and universities have promised appropriate
and/or proportional refunds, the Defendant excludes itself from
such other institutions treating students fairly, equitably and as
required by the law. As a result, the Defendant's actions have
financially damaged the Plaintiff and the Class Members, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring 2020
academic term at the Defendant.

Quinnipiac University is an institution of higher learning located
in Hamden, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          IZARD KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Phone: (860) 493-6292
          Fax: (860) 493-6290
          Email: craabe@ikrlaw.com

               - and –

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, DC 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and –

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (708) 628-4949
          Email: dank@hbsslaw.com
                 whitneys@hbsslaw.com


R & B CORPORATION: Faces Turner FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R & B Corporation of
Virginia, et al. The case is styled Free Turner, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R & B Corporation of
Virginia doing business as: Credit Control Corporation, John Does
1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-00280-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va., June 4, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

R & B Corporation of Virginia is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aryeh Eliezer Stein, Esq.
          MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
          600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Phone: (443) 326-6011
          Fax: (410) 653-1061
          Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com


REVENUE MANAGEMENT: Faces Druschel Suit Over Telemarketing Acts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Druschel and Robert Druschel, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Revenue Management Group,
Inc. d/b/a KeyBridge Medical Revenue Care, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-1086 (N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2020) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiffs against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

According to the complaint, Defendant routinely violates TCPA by
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice to place non-emergency calls to telephone numbers
assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express
consent, in that it continues to place calls to cellular telephone
numbers after the regular and customary users of those cellular
telephone numbers, including the Plaintiffs, instruct Defendant to
stop calling those cellular telephone numbers.

The Defendant also routinely violates FDCPA by communicating with a
consumer in connection with the collection of any debt at a time
known to be inconvenient to the consumer, in that it continues to
place calls to telephone numbers, in connection with its efforts to
collect debts in default, after being instructed to stop calling
those telephone numbers during work hours or other temporal
restrictions.

Plaintiffs' obligations, or alleged obligations, owed or due, or
asserted to be owed or due, arise from transactions in which the
money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the
transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes—namely, personal medical care.

Revenue Management attempted to collect the respective alleged
debts from Plaintiffs, the alleged debts were in default, or
Defendant treated the alleged debts as if they were in default from
the time that Defendant acquired them for collection.

Revenue Management Group, Inc. d/b/a KeyBridge Medical Revenue
Care, is an Ohio-based company that specializes in collecting many
variations of debt.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Ronald S. Weiss, Esq.
           6725 West Central, M310
           Toledo, OH 43617
           Telephone: (248) 737-8000
           Email: Ron@RonWeissAttorney.com

                        - and -

           Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
           GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
           401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
           Austin, TX 78701
           Telephone: (512) 803-1578
           Email: akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com

ROSSCO CRANE: Powers Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Powers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROSSCO CRANE & RIGGING, INC., ROSS KOVACH and JERE
JOVACH, Case No. 1:20-cv-00101-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., June 5, 2020), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Dakota
Century Code and the North Dakota Administrative Code as a result
of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff proper overtime
compensation for all hours that the Plaintiff worked over 40 each
week.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been misclassified by
the Defendants as salaried employees and as exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA. The Plaintiff regularly worked
over 40 hours per week. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly Crane
Operator from August 2016 to August 2018, a salaried Crane Operator
from August 2018 to March 2020, and a Field Supervisor from March
2020 to May 2020.

The Defendants conduct business within the State of North Dakota,
operating and managing a transportation and oil field equipment
service in Ward County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


RYDER SYSTEM: Gross Law Announces Filing of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm notified
of a class action filed against publicly traded Ryder System, Inc.
(NYSE:R).

Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:R)

Investors Affected: July 23, 2015 - February 13, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ryder System, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Ryder's financial results were inflated as a
result of the Company's practice of overstating the residual values
of the vehicles in its fleet; (2) there was no reasonable basis to
believe that Ryder would sell its used vehicles for the amounts
that it had assigned to them; (3) Ryder's residual values for its
fleet of vehicles exceeded the expected future values that would be
realized upon the sale of those vehicles; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7184&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
         Tel: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
[GN]

RYDER SYSTEM: Schall Law Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Ryder
System, Inc. (NYSE:R) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 23,
2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 20, 2020.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/join-action-form/?slug=ryder-system-inc&id=2476

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Ryder engaged in a pattern of overstating
the residual value of its vehicles, which in turn inflated its
financial results. The Company lacked any basis for the belief that
its vehicles would sell for the values it assigned to them. The
Company overstated these vehicles to such a degree that it was
forced to take a $357 million depreciation charge related to the
reduction of residual values in 2019. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Ryder, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

        The Schall Law Firm
        Brian Schall, Esq.,
        www.schallfirm.com
        Office: 310-301-3335
        Cell: 424-303-1964
        info@schallfirm.com
[GN]

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Ponsa-Rabell Suit Recommended
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin entered a Report and
Recommendation dated June 5, 2020, recommending that defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint for Failure to State
a Claim in the case styled as, Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et al. v.
Santander Securities, L.L.C., et al., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243,
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico, be granted.

Objections to Judge McGiverin's Report and Recommendation are due
June 19.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Santander Securities
LLC (SSLLC), Santander BanCorp, Banco Santander Puerto Rico (BSPR),
the Company and Banco Santander, S.A. (Santander) are defendants in
a putative class action alleging federal securities and common law
claims relating to the solicitation and purchase of more than
$180.0 million of Puerto Rico bonds and $101.0 million of
Closed-end funds (CEFs) during the period from December 2012 to
October 2013.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to
defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of
Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds.

This case is part of the financial fallout related to Puerto Rico
Municipal Bonds.  Plaintiffs are purchasers of PRMBs and other
securities heavily concentrated in PRMBs, including Puerto Rico
Closed End Funds (PRCEFs) and Puerto Rico Open End Funds (PROEFs).
Plaintiffs purchased these securities from SSLLC from December 1,
2012, to October 31, 2013.  During that time, ownership of PRMB
securities was risky, and SSLLC was reducing its own PRMB inventory
because of that risk.

Plaintiffs charge defendants with devising a scheme to defraud
them, whereby SSLLC, acting  in concert with other defendants,
solicited plaintiffs to buy PRMBs without revealing certain
information regarding the risks involved and SSLLC's internal
strategy related to those risks.  PRMBs are financial instruments
used by the government of Puerto Rico to finance its commercial
operations.  Generally, buyers of PRMBs loan the issuer money in
exchange for a set number of interest payments. Issuers guarantee
payment of the monthly yield and principal by a certain maturity
date.  At the time plaintiffs purchased PRMB securities, a series
of factors, including Puerto Rico's economic situation, made that
investment risky.

In May 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's R&R is available at
https://is.gd/joWTIE from PacerMonitor.com.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merit Discovery in Deka Suit Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that merits discovery in the
Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K lawsuit, remains stayed until the court
rules on the issue of class certification.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in a purported
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH
et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No.
3:15-cv-2129-K.

The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 2014, was brought
against SC, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in SC's Initial Public Offering (IPO), including
Santander Investment Securities Inc. (SIS), on behalf of a class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC
securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning SC's ability to pay dividends and
the adequacy of SC's compliance systems and oversight.

In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the lawsuit, which was denied.

In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Unit Faces Ruf-Tepper Suit
----------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Santander Bank, N.A.
has been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit
entitled, Daniel and Rebecca Ruf-Tepper v. Santander Bank, N.A.,
No. 20-cv-00501.

Santander Bank, N.A. (the Bank) is a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, captioned Daniel and Rebecca Ruf-Tepper v.
Santander Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-00501.

The Tepper Lawsuit, filed in January 2020, alleges that the Bank is
obligated to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts pursuant to
state law.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the Bank will respond.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.

SCWORX CORP: Howard G. Smith Notes of June 29 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit hasbeen filed on behalf of shareholders of
publicly-traded SCWorx Corp. (NASDAQ: WORX). Investors have until
the deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

SCWorx Corp. (NASDAQ: WORX)

Class Period: April 13, 2020 - April 17, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests had
previously misrepresented its operations; (2) that SCWorx's buyer
was a small company that was unlikely to adequately support the
purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) that, as a
result, the Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been
overstated or entirely fabricated; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact:

          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          Howard G. Smith, Esquire
          Tel: 215-638-4847
               888-638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/[GN]


SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement With ADR Purchasers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case In re SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS S.A. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 1:17-cv-04665-FB-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), before the  Hon. Frederic
Block and Hon. Sanket J. Bulsara, a hearing will be held on
September 8, 2020, to consider approval of a settelement of a class
action launched on behalf of purchasers of SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS,
S.A. American Depositary Receipt Shares ("ADRs") between April 29,
2016 and July 31, 2017.

The hearing will be held on September 8, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., before
the Honorable Frederic Block in Courtroom 10C S of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225
Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, to determine: (1) whether
the proposed Settlement of the Settlement Class's claims against
the Defendants for $2,750,000 should be approved as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the
Court should permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that
arise from or relate to the subject matter of the Action; (4)
whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the
Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with
the Court; (5) whether the application by Plaintiffs' Counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and
(6) whether the Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs
and expenses should be granted. At the Court's discretion, the
Final Approval Hearing may be telephonic, in which case call-in
details will be displayed by the Settlement Administrator at its
website: www.sequanscommunicationssecuritieslitigation.com.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SEQUANS ADRs FROM APRIL 29,
2016, TO JULY 31, 2017, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim, postmarked or
delivered to the Settlement Administrator no later than July 20,
2020.  Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by July 20, 2020,
will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving
any of the recovery in connection with the settlement of the
Action.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not
request exclusion, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Judgments, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Mailed Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement or exclude
yourself from the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim form, you may
obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation
(which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined
terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents,
online at www.sequanscommunicationssecuritieslitigation.com, or by
writing to:

     Sequans Communications S.A. Securities Litigation
     Settlement Administrator
     c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
     P.O. Box 173102
     Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: 1-866-963-9973

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Courts, or the
Clerks of the Courts.  Inquiries may also be made to a
representative of Plaintiffs' Counsel:

         Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         10 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 3505
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 377-1181
               - or –

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Ave., 40th Fl.
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER
THAN AUGUST 25, 2020, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE
NOTICE.  ALL MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED
EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE JUDGMENTS
ENTERED IN THE ACTION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF
CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES.
ANY OBJECTIONS MAY BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND MUST BE SENT TO
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL BY AUGUST 25, 2020, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.  [GN]


SIX FLAGS GREAT ADVENTURE: Forbes Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIX FLAGS GREAT
ADVENTURE, LLC. The case is styled as Krystal Forbes, an
individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. SIX FLAGS GREAT ADVENTURE, LLC, wholly-owned subsidiary of SIX
FLAGS THEME PARKS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06873 (D.N.J., June 4,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

Six Flags Great Adventure LLC operates recreational theme parks.
The Company provides roller coaster rides, water attractions,
concerts, shows, restaurants, game venues, retail outlets, and
other entertainment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq.
          KIMMEL AND SILVERMAN P.C.
          30 East Butler Avenue
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Phone: (215) 540-8888
          Email: teamkimmel@creditlaw.com


SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Blackmore Suit Moved From N.D. Iowa to W.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Terry Blackmore, Jason Klingenberg, Wayne
Rupem, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Smitty's Supply, Inc., Tractor Supply Company, CAM2 International
L.L.C., Case No. 5:19-cv-04052, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 4,
2020.

The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00430-SRB to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

Smitty's Supply, Inc., manufactures and distributes lubricants and
related products. The Company offers antifreeze, brake fluids,
chemicals, gear oils, greases, heavy duty engine oils, power
steering fluids, and synthetic oils.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul D. Lundberg, Esq.
          600 Fourth St., Suite 906
          Sioux City, IA 51101
          Phone: (712) 234-3030
          Email: paul@lundberglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Bryan T. White, Esq.
          5009 West 114 Street
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Phone: (913) 338-3891

               - and -

          Dirk L. Hubbard, Esq.
          Thomas V Bender, Esq.
          HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 421-0700
          Fax: (816) 421-0899
          Email: dhubbard@hab-law.com
                 tbender@hab-law.com

               - and -

          Gene Graham, Esq.
          William L Carr, Esq.
          WHITE GRAHAM BUCKLEY & CARR LLC
          19049 East Valley View Parkway, Suite C
          Independence, MO 64055
          Phone: (816) 373-9080
          Email: ggraham@wagblaw.com
                 bcarr@wagblaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacqueline Cook, Esq.
          Nikki Eckland Cannezzaro, Esq.
          FRANKE SCHULTZ & MULLEN
          8900 Ward Parkway
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Phone: (816) 421-7100
          Email: jcook@fsmlawfirm.com
                 ncannezzaro@fsmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John C. Gray, Esq.
          HEIDMAN LAW FIRM LLP
          1128 Historic 4th Street
          PO Box 3086
          Sioux City, IA 51102
          Phone: (712) 255-8838
          Email: john.gray@heidmanlaw.com


SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Buford Suit Moved From Arkansas to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sean Buford, On Behalf of Himself and all
Others Similarly Situated v. Smitty's Supply, Inc., Tractor Supply
Company, CAM2 International L.L.C., Case No. 1:19-cv-00082, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on June 4, 2020.

The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00428-SRB to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Smitty's Supply, Inc., manufactures and distributes lubricants and
related products. The Company offers antifreeze, brake fluids,
chemicals, gear oils, greases, heavy duty engine oils, power
steering fluids, and synthetic oils.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan T. White, Esq.
          5009 West 114 Street
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Phone: (913) 338-3891

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 777-7777
          Email: chris@yourattorney.com

               - and -

          Dirk L. Hubbard, Esq.
          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 421-0700
          Fax: (816) 421-0899
          Email: dhubbard@hab-law.com
                 tbender@hab-law.com

               - and -

          Gene Graham, Esq.
          William L. Carr, Esq.
          WHITE GRAHAM BUCKLEY & CARR LLC
          19049 East Valley View Parkway, Suite C
          Independence, MO 64055
          Phone: (816) 373-9080
          Email: ggraham@wagblaw.com
                 bcarr@wagblaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT LP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Phone: (281) 488-8854
          Fax: (281) 488-8867
          Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark Steven Breeding, Esq.
          MUNSON, ROWLETT, MOORE & BOONE, P.A.
          Regions Center, Suite 1900
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 374-6535
          Fax: (501) 374-5906
          Email: mark.breeding@mrmblaw.com

               - and -

          Nikki Eckland Cannezzaro, Esq.
          FRANKE SCHULTZ & MULLEN
          8900 Ward Parkway
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Phone: (816) 421-7100
          Email: ncannezzaro@fsmlawfirm.com


SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Mabie Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jacob Mabie, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Smitty's Supply, Inc., Tractor Supply
Company, CAM2 International L.L.C., Defendants, Mabie Trucking,
Inc., Miscellaneous, Case No. 4:19-cv-03308, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 4,
2020.

The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00434-SRB to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Smitty's Supply, Inc., manufactures and distributes lubricants and
related products. The Company offers antifreeze, brake fluids,
chemicals, gear oils, greases, heavy duty engine oils, power
steering fluids, and synthetic oils.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          Dirk L. Hubbard, Esq.
          HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 421-0700
          Fax: (816) 421-0899
          Email: tbender@hab-law.com
                 dhubbard@hab-law.com

               - and -

          Bryan T. White, Esq.
          5009 West 114 Street
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Phone: (913) 338-3891

               - and -

          Gene Graham, Esq.
          William L. Carr, Esq.
          WHITE GRAHAM BUCKLEY & CARR LLC
          19049 East Valley View Parkway, Suite C
          Independence, MO 64055
          Phone: (816) 373-9080
          Email: ggraham@wagblaw.com
                 bcarr@wagblaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT LP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Phone: (281) 488-8854
          Fax: (281) 488-8867
          Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Justin Edward Vandenbout, Esq.
          CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA, ET AL.
          1200 Smith St., 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 658-1818
          Email: justin.vandenbout@chamberlainlaw.com

               - and -

          Jacqueline Cook, Esq.
          Nikki Eckland Cannezzaro, Esq.
          FRANKE SCHULTZ & MULLEN
          8900 Ward Parkway
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Phone: (816) 421-7100
          Fax: (816) 421-7915
          Email: jcook@fsmlawfirm.com
                 ncannezzaro@fsmlawfirm.com


SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Zornes Suit Moved From Kansas to W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Terry Zornes, Adam Sevy, George Bollin, Randy
Vilela, on behalf of self and all others similarly situated v.
Smitty's Supply, Inc., Orscheln Farm and Home, LLC, doing business
as: Orscheln Farm & Home, Tractor Supply Company, CAM2
International L.L.C., Case No. 2:19-cv-02257, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 4,
2020.

The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00431-SRB to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Smitty's Supply, Inc., manufactures and distributes lubricants and
related products. The Company offers antifreeze, brake fluids,
chemicals, gear oils, greases, heavy duty engine oils, power
steering fluids, and synthetic oils.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Turner White, Esq.
          William L. Carr, Esq.
          WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR, LLC
          19049 East Valley View Parkway, Ste. C
          Independence, MO 64055
          Phone: (816) 373-9080
          Fax: (816) 373-9319
          Email: bwhite@wagblaw.com
                 bcarr@wagblaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas V Bender, Esq.
          Dirk L. Hubbard, Esq.
          HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 421-0700
          Fax: (816) 421-0899
          Email: tbender@hab-law.com
                 dhubbard@hab-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacqueline A. Cook, Esq.
          Nikki Eckland Cannezzaro, Esq.
          FRANKE SCHULTZ & MULLEN
          8900 Ward Parkway
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Phone: (816) 421-7100
          Email: jcook@fsmlawfirm.com
                 ncannezzaro@fsmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Pickelman, Esq.
          QUILLING SELANDER CUMMISKEY & LOWNDS
          2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 880-1884
          Fax: (214) 871-2111
          Email: mpickelman@qsclpc.com


STATE FARM: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Excessive Cost of Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
5:20-cv-00617-FB (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and similarly situated holders of universal life
insurance policies issued by State Farm and its predecessors in
interest issued using FORM-94030.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of Texas consumers, who
own or owned a Subject Policy and who have been forced to pay
unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges to State Farm or
its predecessors in interest. The Defendant has caused material
harm to the Plaintiff and the proposed class by improperly draining
monies they have accumulated in the Subject Policies, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that her claims and those of the proposed
class are exclusively supported by the plain language of the
Subject Policies and are not derived from any alleged conversations
had, or documents reviewed, at the time of sale. Indeed, she avers,
the Subject Policies are form contracts, and she and the Class did
not--and were not able to--negotiate any of the terms in these
contracts.

State Farm operates as an insurance company. The Company offers
life insurance products, as well as insures cars, boats, and
motorcycles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Will Thompson, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  whompson@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          Kimberly Fetsick, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202)540-7201
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  ngiddings@hausfeld.com
                  mcoolidge@hausfeld.com
                  kfetsick@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          Facsimile: (202) 871-8180
          E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Lahman, Esq.
          Roger L. Ediger, Esq.
          MITCHELL DeCLERK
          202 West Broadway Avenue
          Enid, OK 73701
          Telephone: (580) 234-5144
          Facsimile: (580) 234-8890
          E-mail: larry.lahman@sbcglobal.net
                  rle@mdpllc.com


STUART SUPREME: Calderon Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN A. CALDERON, and other similarly situated individuals v.
STUART SUPREME, INC., EVENS SAINVIL, and ANASTHASIE OSIRUS,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 25,
2020), seeks to recover damages for unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he and all other current and former
employees similarly situated worked in excess of 40 hours during
one or more weeks on or after May 2017, without being compensated
overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.

Stuart Supreme is a retail business operating as Shell gas station,
carwash, auto repair shop, and convenience store located at 9841
Kendall Drive, in Miami, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          PALMA LAW GROUP
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


STUDIO M BAR: Underpays Staff, Duan and Su Allege
-------------------------------------------------
YUNHAN DUAN, YIMING SU, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, vs. STUDIO M BAR & LOUNGE INC,
PROVENCE BBQ & BAR INC, ROSE CAKE HOUSE INC., SEALICIOUS INC. D/B/A
DR. SEA, POT PA HOTPOT INC, PHO DEM INC., ABC CORP. D/B/A UMI SUSHI
& LOUNGE, ABC CORP. D/B/A YUMMY SUSHI D/B/A YUMMY DESSERTS, "A JIE"
DOE AKA KIT DOE, JAYDEN DOE, "A ZHONG" DOE, AMBER DOE, SEAN DOE,
ABC CORP. D/B/A UNO SUSHI AND LOUNGE, CHENGZHI XIA, NIGHT MARKET
BBQ INC., AND WEI YIN CHEN AKA TONY Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02240-RRM-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020) is an action brought
by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself well as other employees
similarly situated, against Defendants for alleged violations of
the Federal Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and of New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), arising from  Defendants' various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

The complaint states that Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked,
minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 each workweek, and spread of hours, as well as failing to
provide their employees, including Plaintiff, with wage notice at
the time of their hiring and wage statements for each pay period.

The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery persons to of Defendants'
group restaurants.

Studio M Bar & Lounge Inc. is a New York-based pub and restaurant.

Provence BBQ & Bar Inc. is a New York-based restaurant.

Rose Cake House Inc. is a New York-based bakery.

Sealicious Inc. d/b/a Dr. Sea is a New York-based aquatic food
processor.

Pot Pa Hotpot Inc. d/b/a Hopa Sushi is a New York-based
restaurant.

Pho Dem Inc. is a New York-based restaurant.

ABC Corp. d/b/a Umi Sushi & Lounge is a New York-based restaurant.

ABC Corp. d/b/a Yummy Sushi or Yummy Desserts is a New York-based
restaurant.

Night Market BBQ Inc. is a New York-based barbeque restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jiajing Fan, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          Email: jfan@hanglaw.com

SUNRISE COMMUNICATIONS: Floyd Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS FLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUNRISE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:20-cv-03486-NC (N.D. Cal.,
May 22, 2020), alleges that the Company promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Beginning in April 2019, the Company contacted the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in -0267. The Company used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(a)(1) to place its call, says the complaint.

Sunrise is doing business in the telecommunication industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 323 306-4234
          Facsimile: 866 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


TELECOM HOME: Shortman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Shortman, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly-situated persons v. TELECOM HOME SERVICES, LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company, Case No. 3:20-cv-05531 (W.D.
Wash., June 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and invaded the Plaintiff's
privacy by causing unsolicited text messages to be made to the
Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones through
the use of an auto-dialer, without prior written express consent.

The Defendant sent at least two unauthorized text messages to the
Plaintiff's cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system
("ATDS") for the purpose of soliciting business from the Plaintiff,
according to the complaint. The TCPA was enacted to protect
consumers from unsolicited telephone calls and unsolicited messages
exactly like those alleged in this case.

In response to the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff
seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all sending of
unsolicited text messages to consumers, and an award of statutory
damages to the members of the Class under the TCPA.

The Plaintiff, Theresa Shortman, is a citizen of Washington.

Telecom Home Services, LLC, is a Georgia limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Duluth, Georgia, and
operates under the name Rural 4G, with a website address of
http://www.rural4g.com/.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter Smith, Esq.
          SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES, PLLC
          3905 Martin Way East, Suite F
          Olympia, WA 98506
          Phone: 360-915-6952
          Email: walter@smithdietrich.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Phone: 847-368-1500
          Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


TENNESSEE: Court Directs Appointment of Inmates' Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RICKY HARRIS, et al. v. STATE
OF TENNESSEE, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00174 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Jeffery S. Frensley has directed the Clerk of Court to
appoint counsel from the Civil Appointments Panel to represent the
Plaintiffs in this case.

The Plaintiffs, appearing pro se, told the Court that Plaintiffs
are without funds to retain counsel due to their incarceration, and
that, as pro se prisoners, they are inadequate to represent the
interest of their fellow inmates in a class action.  "Since this
class action is too complex for a pro se prisoner to handle,
counsel must be appointed," Plaintiffs said.

On February 22, 2019, current and former inmates of the Tennessee
Department of Correction filed the complaint for alleged violations
of their civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Tennessee's statutes
regarding life sentences and calculating sentencing credits are
unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process  Clause.
Additionally, Plaintiffs alleged that TDOC's process for addressing
a prisoner's request to recalculate his sentence violates the Due
Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment.

Tennessee is a landlocked state in the U.S. South with its
centrally located capital Nashville.[CC]

TERMINIX INT'L: Underpays Commercial Technicians, Lowe Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KATHY LOWE, an individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. THE TERMINIX
INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, FRANK
CONLEY, an individual, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
20STCV18623 (Cal. Sup. Ct., May 15, 2020) balks at Defendant's
unlawful employment and compensation policies in violation of the
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees were employed by Defendant as
commercial technicians.

The complaint asserts these claims:

     -- Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and the other aggrieved
employees California's minimum wage and daily overtime rate for all
time worked in excess of 8 hours and 40 hours per week;

     -- Defendant failed to pay all wages due upon termination and
within 72 hours of resignation for its former employees;

     -- Defendant did not provide them with the required rest and
meal breaks; and

     -- Defendant did not provide them with accurate and itemized
wage statements.

Moreover, in compliance with the suit procedures pursuant to
California Labor Code Section 2699.3, Plaintiff posted online
notice to the California Labor and Workplace Development Agency
(LWDA) and provided Defendants a written notice on February 13,
2020.

However, Plaintiff did not receive any notice from LWDA stating its
intentions to prosecute Plaintiff's PAGA claims after more than 65
days since the online notice was posted.

The Terminix International Company, L.P. provides termite and pest
control services to residential and commercial customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Preston H. Lim, Esq.
          LIM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2350
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Tel: (213)900-3000
          Fax: (213)204-3000
          Email: phl@limlawgroup.com

                - and -

          Lloyd J. Lee, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD LEE
          25050 Ave Kearny, Suite 107-A
          Valencia, CA 91355
          Tel: (661)480-2420
          Fax: (213)995-6344
          Email: Lloyd@pro-esq.com


TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Lidoderm Suit in Mississippi Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants'
request for dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the State of
Mississippi against Teva and Watson related to Lidoderm(R) remains
pending.

Beginning in 2013, several putative class actions were filed
against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, alleging that
Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc. relating to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches)
violated the antitrust laws.

The cases were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation in
federal court in California and were settled in 2018. The Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) also filed suit to challenge the Lidoderm(R)
settlement, although in February 2019, the FTC dismissed its claims
against Actavis and Allergan, in exchange for Teva’s agreement to
amend the Modafinil Consent Decree.

In July 2019, Teva also settled a complaint brought by the State of
California. On September 16, 2019, end-payers Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan filed their
own lawsuit against Watson, and other defendants, in Michigan state
court and that lawsuit remains pending.

On January 24, 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit
against Teva and Watson in Mississippi state court, which the
defendants have moved to dismiss, which motion remains pending.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Certification Proceeding in Lamictal(R) Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that class
certification proceedings is ongoing in the suit initiated by
direct-purchaser of lamotrigine (generic Lamictal(R)).

In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser
plaintiffs sued GlaxoSmithKline  (GSK) and Teva in New Jersey
federal court for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in
connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving
lamotrigine (generic Lamictal(R)) entered into in February 2005.

The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement unlawfully
delayed generic entry and seek unspecified damages. In December
2012, the court dismissed the case, but in June 2015, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for
further proceedings.

In December 2018, the district court granted the direct-purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but on April 22, 2020,
the Third Circuit reversed that ruling and remanded for further
class certification proceedings.

Annual sales of Lamictal(R) were approximately $950 million at the
time of the settlement and approximately $2.3 billion at the time
Teva launched its generic version of Lamictal(R) in July 2008.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Niaspan Indirect Buyers' Bid for Class Status Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court
overseeing an antitrust suit related to sales of Niaspan(R) has yet
to rule on the indirect purchasers' pending motion for class
certification.

In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end
payers for, Niaspan(R) (extended release niacin) sued Teva and
Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a
settlement agreement in April 2005, to resolve patent litigation
over the product.

A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Throughout
2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct-purchaser
opt-out plaintiffs filed complaints with allegations nearly
identical to those of the direct purchasers' class and, in August
2019, the district court certified the direct-purchaser class,
although the court has yet to rule on the indirect purchasers'
pending motion for class certification.

In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County,
California, filed a similar complaint in California state court,
which has since been amended, alleging violations of state law.

Defendants moved to strike the District Attorney's claims for
restitution and civil penalties to the extent not limited to
alleged activity occurring in Orange County.

The Superior Court denied that motion. The Court of Appeals
subsequently reversed the decision and review of the Appellate
Court decision is now pending before the California Supreme Court.


Annual sales of Niaspan(R) were approximately $416 million at the
time of the settlement and approximately $1.1  billion at the time
Teva launched its generic version of Niaspan(R) in September 2013.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Settlement in Provigil(R) Suit Awaits Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company's
settlement agreement with the State of California in a class action
suit related to Provigil(R) is pending final court approval.

Beginning in April 2006, certain subsidiaries of Teva were named in
a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania with allegations that the
settlement agreements entered into between Cephalon, Inc., now a
Teva subsidiary ("Cephalon"), and various generic pharmaceutical
companies in late 2005 and early 2006 to resolve patent litigation
involving certain finished modafinil products (marketed as
PROVIGIL(R)) were unlawful because they had the effect of excluding
generic competition.

The cases also allege that Cephalon improperly asserted its
PROVIGIL patent against the generic pharmaceutical companies.

Separately, Apotex challenged Cephalon's PROVIGIL patent and, in
October 2011, the court found the patent to be invalid and
unenforceable based on inequitable conduct.

Teva has either settled or reached agreements in principle to
settle with all plaintiffs in such cases, except for an action
brought by the State of Louisiana.

The settlement with the State of California that was reached in
2019 is still pending final court approval.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TOWER RESEARCH: Choi Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Myun-Uk Choi, Jin-Ho Jung, Sung-Hun Jung, Kyung-Sub Lee
and Sung-Hee Lee filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated May 13, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Choi v. Tower
Research Capital LLC, Case No. 14-cv-9912, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
are members of a putative class comprised of parties, who
transacted in certain futures contracts during 2012. The Plaintiffs
allege that Tower Research and its CEO, Mark Gorton used fictitious
trades and other deceptive techniques to manipulate the prices at
which these futures contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange Globex platform.

The appellate case is captioned as Choi v. Tower Research Capital
LLC, Case No. 20-1648, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Myun-Uk Choi, Jin-Ho Jung, Sung-Hun Jung,
Sung-Hee Lee, and Kyung-Sub Lee, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-0177
          E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

Defendants-Appellees Tower Research Capital LLC and Mark Gorton are
represented by:

          Noah A. Levine, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8875

               - and -

          Robert Trenchard, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-3942


TRANS UNION: Faces Meeks Suit in Oregon Alleging FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Union, LLC. The
case is styled as Ashlyn Meeks, Kenneth Mahl, Anne McLaughlin, and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00914-IM (D. Ore., June 5, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Trans Union LLC operates as global information and insights
company. The Company offers various credit monitoring products,
risk management solutions, marketing services, and other related
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin M. Baxter, Esq.
          BAXTER & BAXTER
          8835 S.W. Canyon Lane, Suite 130
          Portland, OR 97225-3429
          Phone: (503) 297-9031
          Fax: (503) 291-9172
          Email: justin@baxterlaw.com


TRAVEL NURSE: Underpays Heathcare Staff, Lehmkuhl Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
CAROL LEHMKUHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVEL NURSE ACROSS AMERICA, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00518-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 15, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant through its office in North Little
Rock, but assigned to work in Michigan as an hourly-paid surgical
assistant from January 2020 until March 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
throughout their tenure with Defendant.

However, although Defendant paid them 1.5x their base hourly rate
for each hour they worked over 40 in a workweek and a bonus of
$5.00 per hours for every hour they spent "on call", Defendant
failed to include the housing or meal allowances and the bonuses
when calculating their overtime pay.

Travel Nurse Across America, LLC is a healthcare staffing firm.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Emails: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TROPICANA ATLANTIC: Pasquale Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie J. Pasquale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TROPICANA ATLANTIC CITY CORP. d/b/a TROPICANA CASINO
RESORT, Case No. 1:20-cv-06909 (D.N.J., June 5, 2020), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages owed to
the Plaintiff.

Pursuant to its casino-wide policies and procedures, the Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiff the mandated federal minimum wage rate
for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a
single workweek, according to the complaint. In particular, the
Defendant's time-clock rounding policy, procedure, and practice is
used in such a manner that it results, over a period of time, in
the failure to compensate its employees properly for all time
worked, including overtime hours.

In addition, the Defendant failed to properly inform its tipped
employees of the required tip credit provisions prior to paying a
sub minimum direct cash wage, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant
also miscalculated its employees' regular rate of pay for overtime
purposes, resulting in unpaid overtime compensation, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its casino and
worked as a Table Games Dealer, which is an hourly, non-exempt
position.

The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of New Jersey that operates a casino located in Atlantic
City, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: 215-884-2491
          Facsimile: 215-884-2492
          Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                 mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Todd M. McGuire, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: 816-714-7101
          Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                 mcguire@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Phone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                 mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


U.S. OIL FUND: Glancy Prongay Probing Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues investigation on behalf of United States Oil Fund,
LP ("USO" or the "Company") (NYSE: USO) investors concerning the
Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal
securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your USO investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases-application/case-information/united-states-oil-fund-lp/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On May 29, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
had opened probes into the United States Oil Fund, LP. According to
the article, the probes concerned issues including "whether
shareholders were adequately informed that the ETF's value wouldn't
necessarily move in tandem with the spot price of oil and the
fund's recent decision to purchase crude contracts that expire
further out in the future."

The Company's stock has lost 75% of its value in the two months
ended April 30.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
USO should consider their options to aid the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC.

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

Contact:

         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


UNIFIN INC: Kim Sues in N.D. Illinois Alleging FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Heesoo Kim, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Unifin Inc., CACH, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03306 (N.D. Ill., June 4, 2020).
  
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Unifin, Inc., is a full service BPO and Accounts Receivable
Management firm licensed and bonded nationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Michael Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          444 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com

               - and -

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


UNITED STATES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in Alexander Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kathleen Sebelius filed an appeal from the District
Court's Judgment dated March 26, 2020, entered in the lawsuit
styled CHRISTINA ALEXANDER, et al. v. ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Defendant, Case No. 3:11-cv-1703-MPS, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Michael
P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
(1) denied the Secretary's limited motion for clarification and
reconsideration; (2) denied the parties' supplemental briefing on
the need to further subdivide the class; and (3) granted in part
and denied in part the four motions to seal documents filed in
opposition to the Secretary's motion for summary judgment.

On March 27, 2019, the Judge denied the Secretary's motion to
dismiss for lack of standing, motion to decertify the class, and
motion for summary judgment.  In ruling on the Secretary's motions
for summary judgment and class decertification, he explained that,
given the age of the case and its tortuous procedural history, he
would not consider further argument at this point on the merits of
class certification in general or on the issues addressed in the
summary judgment ruling, and the parties are not authorized to file
further briefs on these issues.  He warned that the time for motion
practice is over, and scheduled a status conference to choose a
trial date.  Seven days later, the Secretary filed a motion for
reconsideration and clarification.

The Secretary first moves for reconsideration of the Judge ruling
on class decertification.  The Secretary asserts that the Judge
overlooked the fact there is no evidence that every Medicare
beneficiary who spent at least three days as an inpatient, during
the relevant time period required or even was recommended for
post-hospitalization SNF care.  Thus, he argues, the present class
includes individuals who lack a cognizable injury for purposes of
standing.

The appellate case is captioned as Bagnall v. Sebelius, Case No.
20-1642, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff Richard Bagnall, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Alice Bers, Esq.
          Mary T. Berthelo, Esq.
          Gill W. Deford, Esq.
          CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY
          PO Box 350
          Willimantic, CT 06226
          Telephone: (860) 456−7790
          Facsimile: (860) 456−2614
          E-mail: abers@medicareadvocacy.org
                  tberthel@medicareadvocacy.org
                  gdeford@medicareadvocacy.org

               - and -

          Anna Rich, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1515 Clay St.
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 879−0296
          E-mail: Anna.Rich@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Eric Matthew Carlson, Esq.
          Kevin Edward Prindiville, Esq.
          NATIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS LAW CENTER
          1330 Broadway, Suite 525
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (213) 674−2813
          Facsimile: (213) 368−0774
          E-mail: ecarlson@nsclc.org
                  kprindiville@nsclc.org

               - and -

          Judith A. Stein, Esq.
          CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC.
          11 Ledgebook Drive
          Mansfield, CT 06282
          Telephone: (860) 456−7790
          Facsimile: (860) 456−2614
          E-mail: jstein@medicareadvocacy.org

               - and -

          Toby S. Edelman, Esq.
          CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC.
          1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 216−0028 ext. 104
          Facsimile: (202) 216−0028
          E-mail: tedelman@medicareadvocacy.org

Defendant Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human
Services, is represented by:

          Carolyn Aiko Ikari, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          450 Main St., Room 328
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 760−7953
          Facsimile: (860) 760−7979
          E-mail: carolyn.ikari@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          James J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Justin M. Sandberg, Esq.
          Elizabeth Tulis, Esq.
          Eva L. Bitran, Esq.
          Garrett Coyle, Esq.
          Jason Lee, Esq.
          Jennie Leah Kneedler, Esq.
          Kelley Hauser, Esq.
          Kieran Gavin Gostin, Esq.   
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          20 Massachusetts Ave.
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 616−8267
          E-mail: james.schwartz@usdoj.gov
                  justin.sandberg@usdoj.gov
                  elizabeth.tulis@usdoj.gov
                  eva.bitran@usdoj.gov
                  garrett.coyle@usdoj.gov
                  jason.lee3@usdoj.gov
                  Jennie.L.Kneedler@usdoj.gov
                  kelley.hauser@usdoj.gov
                  kieran.g.gostin@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Joel L. McElvain, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 626−2929
          E-mail: jmcelvain@kslaw.com


VALLEY FORGE: Faces Noskenda Insurance Suit in W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Forge
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Noskenda Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Valley Forge Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00854-MJP (W.D.
Wash., June 4, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

Valley Forge Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company provides workers' compensation, marine, umbrella,
health, bonds, and liabilities insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy C. Williams-Derry, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Ian S. Birk, Esq.
          Irene Margret Hecht, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Maureen M. Falecki, Esq.
          Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 3RD Ave., Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384
          Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
                 gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                 ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                 IHecht@Kellerrohrback.com
                 lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                 mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com
                 nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Wilner, Esq.
          GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP
          600 University Street, Ste. 2915
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 467-6477
          Fax: (206) 467-6292
          Email: mwilner@gordontilden.com


VIACOMCBS INC: Bid to Dismiss CalPERS Suit Filed
------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants in the
the consolidated class action suit headed by California Public
Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS"), have filed pro forma
motions to dismiss.

Beginning on November 25, 2019, four purported Viacom stockholders
filed separate putative class action lawsuits in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. On January 23, 2020, the Court
consolidated the four lawsuits.

On February 6, 2020, the Court appointed California Public
Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") as Lead Plaintiff for the
consolidated action. On February 28, 2020, CalPERS, together with
Park Employees' and Retirement Board Employees' Annuity and Benefit
Fund of Chicago and Louis M. Wilen, filed a First Amended Verified
Class Action Complaint against  National Amusements, Inc. (NAI),
NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC, Shari E. Redstone, the members of
the Viacom special transaction committee of the Viacom board of
directors (comprised of Thomas J. May, Judith A. McHale, Ronald L.
Nelson and Nicole Seligman) and the company's President and Chief
Executive Officer and director, Robert M. Bakish (collectively,
"Defendants").

The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Viacom
stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Merger Agreement.

The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as
well as other relief.

On March 13, 2020, the Defendants filed pro forma motions to
dismiss.

ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently
unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any.
Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."

ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019.  ViacomCBS
Inc. was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.



VIACOMCBS INC: Bucks County Fund and IUOE to Lead CBS Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial court has
consolidated three lawsuits challenging the company's merger deal
with CBS Corporation, and appointed Bucks County Employees'
Retirement Fund and International Union of Operating Engineers of
Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as co-lead plaintiffs.

On December 4, 2019, Viacom Inc. merged with and into CBS
Corporation ("CBS"), with CBS continuing as the surviving company
(the "Merger"). At the effective time of the Merger, the combined
company changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. ("ViacomCBS"). The
Merger has been accounted for as a transaction between entities
under common control as National Amusements, Inc. ("NAI") was the
controlling stockholder of each of CBS and Viacom (and remains the
controlling stockholder of ViacomCBS). Upon the closing of the
Merger, the net assets of Viacom were combined with those of CBS at
their historical carrying amounts and the companies have been
presented on a combined basis for all periods presented.

Beginning on February 20, 2020, three purported CBS stockholders
filed separate derivative and/or putative class action lawsuits in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On March 31, 2020, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits and
appointed Bucks County Employees' Retirement Fund and International
Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware
as co-lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs") for the consolidated
action.

On April 14, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated
Class Action and Derivative Complaint (as used in this paragraph,
the "Complaint") against Shari E. Redstone, NAI, Sumner M. Redstone
National Amusements Trust, the CBS board of directors (comprised of
Candace K. Beinecke, Barbara M. Byrne, Gary L. Countryman, Brian
Goldner, Linda M. Griego, Robert N. Klieger, Martha L. Minow, Susan
Schuman, Frederick O. Terrell and Strauss Zelnick), former CBS
President and Acting Chief Executive Officer Joseph Ianniello and
nominal defendant ViacomCBS Inc.

The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to CBS
stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of August 13, 2019, as
amended on October 16, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement").

The Complaint also alleges waste and unjust enrichment in
connection with Mr. Ianniello's compensation.

The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as
well as other relief.

ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently
unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any.
Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."

ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019.  ViacomCBS
Inc. was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.


VIACOMCBS INC: Construction Laborers Pension Trust Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit headed by Construction
Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California.

On August 27, 2018 and on October 1, 2018, each of Gene Samit and
John Lantz, respectively, filed putative class action suits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

On November 6, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions.

On November 30, 2018, the Court appointed Construction Laborers
Pension Trust for Southern California as the lead plaintiff of the
consolidated action.

On February 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended putative class action complaint against CBS Corporation
CBS), certain current and former senior executives and members of
the CBS Board.

The consolidated action is stated to be on behalf of purchasers of
CBS Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock between September
26, 2016 and December 4, 2018.

This action seeks to recover damages arising during this time
period allegedly caused by the defendants' purported violations of
the federal securities laws, including by allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements or failing to disclose
material information, and seeks costs and expenses as well as
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On April 12, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss this
action, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on
January 15, 2020.

With the exception of one statement made by Mr. Leslie Moonves,
then Chairman and CEO of CBS, at an industry event in November
2017, in which he allegedly was acting as the agent of CBS, all
claims as to all other allegedly false and misleading statements
were dismissed.

ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the remaining claims are without
merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are
currently unable to determine a range of potential liability, if
any. Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."

ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019.  ViacomCBS
Inc. was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.



WALMART INC: Pickens Sues Over Unsolicited & Misguided Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
DERVAIL D. PICKENS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC. d/b/a WALMART
PHARMACY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02933 (N.D. Ill., May 18,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff was the sole operator, possessor and subscriber of the
cellular telephone numbers in ending in 8332 and 8935.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff began receiving automated
prerecorded telephone calls from Defendant to his cellular phone
number ending in 8332 in November 2019. Defendant's call was trying
to reach a certain Andrew whom Plaintiff does not know who.

Nonetheless, Defendant continued its misguided calls of at least 50
phone calls despite Plaintiff's advise to cease its calls,
assurance to Defendant's representative that he would not receive
future calls, and even after Plaintiff changed his telephone number
into new number ending in 8935.

Moreover, Plaintiff affirms that he never provided his new number
and does not know how Defendant obtained it.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff's privacy has been invaded by
Defendant's misguided calls and caused him aggravation and other
harm. Thus, Plaintiff seeks damages and an order enjoining
Defendant from placing further calls to consumers.

Walmart Inc. d/b/a Walmart Pharmacy is a prominent multinational
retail corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
          Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Tel: (630)575-8180
          Emails: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
                  jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


WASTE PRO: Blandon Seeks to Conditionally Certify Drivers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DODD BLANDON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WASTE PRO USA,
INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-02420-WWB-GJK (W.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former Waste Disposal Drivers, who were/are
      employed by Defendant, Waste Pro USA, Inc., in every state
      except for Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina, and
      who were/are paid on a job/day rate basis, within the last
      three years prior to the filing of this Motion";

   2. directing the Defendant to produce to undersigned counsel
      within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list
      containing the names, the last known addresses, phone
      numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members
      who worked for the Defendants from three years prior to
      the Order granting this Motion to the present;

   3. authorizing undersigned counsel to send notice to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
      Defendant's counsel by first-class mail, e-mail, and text-
      message; and

   4. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by the Defendant's counsel with 60 days from the
      date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to
      Become Opt-In Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff contends that due to the Defendant's company-wide
policies and procedures, he and the putative class members have
been, and continue to be, deprived of wages for all hours worked.
Specifically, the Defendant compensates their Drivers on an alleged
"day rate" basis that was set to cover a specific number of hours
worked each day, and not all hours worked, he adds.

Waste Pro provides waste removal services. The company offers
residential, roll-off dumpster, recycling, compaction equipment,
transfer and landfill, and other related services.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 327-5352
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
          E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.
                  rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com

WELLS FARGO: Intentionally Delays PPP Loans, Karen's Custom Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN'S CUSTOM GROOMING LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, On Behalf of Itself and On Behalf of Similarly Situated
Businesses and Individuals v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation; WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1-10,
Inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 22,
2020), alleges that the Defendants intentionally delayed Paycheck
Protection Program loans applications and were not able to process
in the order in which they were received in accordance with Small
Business Administration Regulations for the PPP program.

Instead of acting consistently with the terms of the CARES Act and
the SBA Regulations by processing PPP Loans to ensure adherence to
the "first-come, first-served" mandate of the SBA Regulations,
Wells Fargo placed several roadblocks that prevented and/or
prejudicially delayed Plaintiff and members of the Classes in
seeking to apply for PPP Loans, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that Wells Fargo required that any applicant
for a PPP Loan have a Wells Fargo business checking account as of
February 15, 2020. This is not a requirement of the CARES Act. The
Plaintiff adds that Wells Fargo announced, on April 5, 2020, that
it would reportedly "focus" on helping businesses with under 50
employees or nonprofit organizations to obtain PPP Loans. While
such entities are intended recipients of the PPP Loans--they are
not the only intended recipients in the pool of potentially
Eligible Recipients--and, therefore, the limitation Wells Fargo was
engrafting on the ability to apply to obtain PPP Loans was not
consistent with the terms of the CARES Act or the SBA Regulations.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq.
          Ian Pike, Esq.
          HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
          E-mail: alreenh@haelaw.com
                  kathleenh@haelaw.com
                  ianp@haelaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Portnoy Law Firm Notes of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC)
investors that acquired securities between April 5, 2020, and May
5, 2020. Eligible Elanco investors have until August 3, 2020 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email.

On April 5, 2020, Wells Fargo announced that it had received strong
interest in the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), a program
under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the
"CARES Act"), and was targeting to distribute a total of $10
billion to small business customers under the requirements of the
PPP.

On April 8, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced that it would allow
Wells Fargo to exceed the asset cap that it had imposed on Wells
Fargo in 2018 after revelations that the Company had opened
millions of accounts in customers' names without their permission,
a change which would allow Wells Fargo to make additional small
business loans as part of the PPP.

That same day, Wells Fargo issued a press release stating, in
relevant part, that, "beginning immediately, in response to the
actions by the Federal Reserve, [Wells Fargo] will expand its
participation in the [PPP] and offer loans to a broader set of its
small business and nonprofit customers subject to the terms of the
program."

Then, on April 19, 2020, after at least one lawsuit was filed
against the Company, reports emerged that Wells Fargo may have
unfairly allocated government-backed loans under the PPP. For
example, USA Today reported that "[t]he lawsuit filed on behalf of
small business owners on Sunday alleges that Wells Fargo unfairly
prioritized businesses seeking large loan amounts, while the
government's small business agency has said that PPP loan
applications would be processed on a first-come, first-served
basis." According to the lawsuit, "[t]he move by Wells Fargo meant
that the bank would receive millions more dollars in processing
fees," and, "[m]aking matters worse, Wells Fargo concealed from the
public that it was reshuffling the PPP applications it received and
prioritizing the applications that would make the bank the most
money."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about Wells Fargo's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to,
and did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the PPP,
and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent such
misallocation; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the
Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well
as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement
actions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information. If you suffered a loss you have until
August 3, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors.

Contact:

          PORTNOY LAW
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          lesley@portnoylaw.com
          310-692-8883
          www.portnoylaw.com
[GN]



WERNER ENTERPRISES: Nebraska Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a wage-and hour class suit in Nebraska.

The company is involved in class action litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that the company owes drivers for unpaid wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Nebraska Wage
Payment and Collection Act and that the company failed to pay
minimum wage per hour for drivers in our Career Track Program,
related to short break time and sleeper berth time.

The period covered by this class action suit is August 2008 through
March 2014.

The case was tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in a verdict of
$0.8 million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break matter and a
verdict in our favor on the sleeper berth matter.

As a result of various post-trial motions, the court has awarded
$0.5 million to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs.

As of March 31, 2020, the company had accrued for the jury's award,
attorney fees and costs in the short break matter and had not
accrued for the sleeper berth matter.

Plaintiffs appealed the post-verdict amounts awarded by the trial
court for fees, costs and liquidated damages, and the Company filed
a cross appeal on the verdict that was in plaintiffs’ favor.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied
Plaintiffs' appeal and granted Werner's appeal, vacating the
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for
proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. The
litigation of this matter will continue in the trial court.

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


WESCO AIRCRAFT: Second Amended Gray Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WESCO AIRCRAFT HOLDINGS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-8528 (LJL) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lewis
J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (i) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint without prejudice, and (ii) granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike exhibits A, B, C,
D, E, and F from the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Gray commenced the putative class action under Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder against Defendants Wesco, its former Chairman Randy J.
Snyder, former CEO Todd Renehan, and former directors, Dayne A.
Baird, Thomas M. Bancroft III, Paul E. Fuluchino, Jay L. Haberland,
Scott E. Kuechle, Adam J. Palmer, Robert D. Paulson, Jennifer M.
Pollino, and Norton A. Schwartz.  The case arises out of the August
2019 agreement of Wesco to be acquired by Platinum Equity Advisors,
LLC and its affiliates and the Sept. 13, 2019 definitive proxy
statement soliciting votes in favor of the merger.

On Sept. 13, 2019, Wesco issued its Proxy on SEC Schedule 14A to
solicit shareholder votes in favor of the Merger.  The Plaintiff
alleges that Wesco's Board knowingly agreed to an unfair merger and
made materially false and misleading statements in the Proxy to
convince stockholders to vote in its favor.  In particular,
Plaintiff alleges that the reduction made by management to the
Initial Management Projections "was not driven by any negative
change to Wesco's future financial prospects" and that "the Updated
Management Projections were illegitimate and did not reflect the
expected future financial performance of Wesco," thus misleading
Wesco's stockholders with respect to the purported fairness of the
Merger Consideration.

The Plaintiff insisted that had the Financial Advisors utilized the
Initial Management Projections, the implied value per share range
calculated in connection with the discounted cash flow analyses
would have exceeded the $11.05 per share Merger Consideration, thus
demonstrating that the transaction was not fair.  

The Plaintiff challenges four sets of statements in the Proxy.  The
first three ("Management Projection Statements") relate to the
disclosure and preparation of the Updated Management Projections,
the description in the Proxy of the fairness opinion prepared by
the Financial Advisors which was based in part on the Updated
Management Projections, and the description of the Reasons for the
Merger which describe the Board's consideration of the opinions of
the Financial Advisors that were formulated after consideration of
the Updated Management Projections.

As to these three sets of statements, the Plaintiff's logic appears
to run as follows: (1) The circumstances under which the Updated
Management Projections were prepared and the relationship of those
projections to the Initial Management Projections render them
"illegitimate"; (2) The Proxy's statements of the fairness opinions
were therefore misleading; and (3) As a consequence of (1) and (2)
above, the Proxy's discussion of the Reason for the Merger, which
referred to the fairness opinions, were misleading, as were
statements to the effect that Wesco management believed the Updated
Management Projections and their underlying assumptions were
reasonable, as were statements to the effect that the Board
determined that the merger was fair to and in the best interests
of" the Company and stockholders.  Fourth and finally, the
Plaintiff also claims that the Proxy omits that Renehan, as Wesco
CEO, discussed with Platinum his future employment as CEO of the
combined entity prior to the signing of the Merger Agreement.

The matter was initiated by the filing of a complaint by alleged
shareholder and putative class representative Gray, on Sept. 13,
2019.  On Jan. 6, 2020, pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the Court appointed Gray as the
Lead Plaintiff, and Monteverde & Associates PC as the lead counsel.
The First Amended Complaint was filed on Oct. 7, 2019, and the
Second Amended Complaint (the operative complaint) was filed on
Jan. 10, 2020.

Presently before the Court are the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and the Plaintiff's motion to strike exhibits to the Motion to
Dismiss.

As noted by a Court Order dated February 27, 2020 available at
https://tinyurl.com/tqkps9l from Leagle.com, oral argument was
scheduled to take place on March 27, 2020.

The Plaintiff moves to strike Exhibits A-F of the declaration
attached to the motion to dismiss on the grounds that they were not
incorporated into the Complaint by reference and should not be
judicially noticed.  These exhibits include the Definitive Proxy
Statement (Ex. A); Form 8-K filed on May 2, 2019 along with a Press
Release and Investor Presentation (Ex. B); Form 10-Q filed on Aug.
8, 2019 (Ex. C); Wesco's press release announcing the merger (Ex.
D); Form 8-K filed Nov. 25, 2019 along with a press release (Ex.
E); and Form 10-K filed Nov. 26, 2019 (Ex. F).

Judge Liman declines to consider or take judicial notice of Wesco's
Nov. 25, 2019 8-K (Ex. E) or its Nov. 26, 2019 Form 10-K (Ex. F)
disclosing respectively Wesco's fourth quarter and full year 2019
financial results.  Although both of these documents were publicly
filed with the SEC of which the Plaintiff had notice, and are thus
arguably the proper subject of consideration on a motion to
dismiss, the Plaintiff does not rely on them for his Complaint, nor
are they integral to his Complaint.  These documents were filed
after the date that the Proxy was mailed and after the date of the
shareholder vote.  The Judge similarly declines to consider or take
notice of the Wesco's Oct. 24, 2019 press release announcing
shareholder approval of the merger (Ex. D).

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not stated a claim for
relief because (1) the management projection statements are
protected by the PSLRA safe-harbor; (2) in the alternative, the
management projection statements are non-actionable opinion not
sufficiently alleged to be false or misleading; (3) the Plaintiff
does not allege that the CEO statement is false or misleading; and
(4) the Plaintiff fails to plead loss causation.

Judge Liman agrees.  First, the Judge finds that the management
projection statements are protected by the safe harbor for
forward-looking statements and are otherwise non-actionable.  They
are statements reflecting a belief in, and adoption of, the Updated
Management Projections.  In essence, as the Complaint itself
demonstrates by its pleadings, the allegations turn on the
reasonableness of the Updated Management Projections and the
judgment that those projections best reflect management's judgment
about the future performance of Wesco.  

Second, the Management Projection Statements are non-actionable
opinion.   The only thing Wesco did not disclose is the inference
that the Plaintiff would draw from those disclosed facts -- an
inference that need not have been disclosed and that the Court has
determined is unfounded.

Third, the omission of the Preliminary Valuation Analysis is not
actionable.  To be sure, the Proxy did not disclose an opinion of a
financial advisor based on the Initial Management Projections.  But
that is because there is no allegation that any such opinion was
rendered -- the advisors assumed that the updated projections and
not the several months old initial projections represented
management's then best judgment regarding Wesco's future results.
Wesco thus cannot be faulted for failing to disclose a fact or
analysis that did not exist.  It left it to the shareholders
themselves to conduct their own analysis if they believed, contrary
to the views of management and the board, that the Initial
Management Projections were the better set of projections.

Fourth, the CEO statement is not actionable.  The allegation, which
is devoid of any factual material, is insufficient to permit the
claim to go forward or to survive the motion to dismiss.  The Judge
notes that the Merger Agreement, whose terms are summarized in the
Proxy and which is attached as an exhibit to the Proxy, did not
require Platinum to retain Renehan as CEO nor did it make it a
condition of closing or otherwise a term of the agreement that
Renehan agree to stay as CEO. See Merger Agreement.  Contrary to
the Plaintiff's argument, it is thus entirely plausible that any
discussions regarding whether Renehan would agree to stay with the
combined company and whether Platinum would agree to continue to
employ him occurred after both the parties and the shareholders had
agreed on the Merger, and certainly after the September 13 date of
the Proxy.  The Plaintiff cites no fact to the contrary.

Finally, the Plaintiff fails to plead loss causation.  Although
there was no alternative transaction available, the Company
nonetheless had two choices before it: to be acquired by Platinum
or to remain independent.  Thus, the fact that the Plaintiff is not
able to point to a specific merger or other transaction Wesco
forewent as a result of the merger vote should not in itself be
fatal to its claim of loss causation; it is not logically or
legally impossible that the decision to be acquired could cause a
loss compared to the decision to remain independent.  Rather, what
is fatal to the Plaintiff's claim is the failure to allege facts
plausibly establishing that the foregone alternative -- an
independent Wesco -- would have created more shareholder value than
the Platinum Merger.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Liman granted without prejudice
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 7, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/718Juf from Leagle.com.

Jacob Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Juan Eneas Monteverde -
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - Monteverde & Associates.

Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc., Randy J. Snyder, Todd Renehan, Dayne
A. Baird, Thomas M. Bancroft III, Paul E. Fulchino, Jay L.
Haberland, Scott E. Kuechle, Adam J. Palmer, Robert D. Paulson,
Jennifer M. Pollino & Norton A. Schwartz, Defendants, represented
by J. Christian Word - christian.word@lw.com - Latham & Watkins,
LLP, Kristin N. Murphy - kristin.murphy@lw.com - Latham & Watkins
LLP & Sean Henry McMahon - sean.mcmahon@lw.com - Latham & Watkins
LLP.


WILHELMINA MODELS: Class Action a Bellwether for Other Industries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernice K. Leber of Arent Fox wrote an article on JD Supra saying
that a fashion model class action case will be a bellwether for
other industries.

The Commercial Division of the New York State Supreme Court for New
York County (O. Peter Sherwood, Justice) recently granted the
fashion models-plaintiffs class action status to a long-simmering
dispute as to whether they are employees under New York Labor Laws,
and not independent contractors. Shanklin et al. v. Wilhelmina
Models, Wilhelmina International, Ltd., Next Management LLC, MC2,
MC2 Model Management LLC and Talent Miami LLC, 2020 NY SlipOp.
31337(U) (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Cty. 5/8/20).

Since New York's Article 9 class action statute became law 45 years
ago, courts underutilized Article 9, largely denying class action
certification. Only recently has the state's highest court evinced
a commitment to permitting it, encouraging the Appellate Divisions
and trial courts to take a more aggressive stance regarding class
certifications, particularly in tenant, consumer, and employee
cases [Borden v. 400 E. 55th St. Assoc. LP (2014)]. Now with
COVID-19 triggering the filing of many class action cases across a
wide swath of industries, the Shanklin decision has significant
implications beyond the fashion industry.
The Parties

The plaintiff class consists of those fashion models who, from 2007
to present, contracted with the nation's leading modeling agencies
for advice, career management, and modeling jobs. The first of
three related class action lawsuits began in 2012, Raske v. Ford
Models et al., Index No. 653619/2012. The models initially sought
compensation for alleged unauthorized uses and reuses of their
photographs. Their breach of contract style claims later morphed
into broader allegations that the agencies violated New York Labor
Law. Essentially, they allege that by requiring the models
exclusively to use the agency, and by controlling the time, manner
and location of shoots and negotiations, vacations and medical
appointments and scrutinizing the models' appearance, the agencies
employed the models as employees, not as independent contractors,
such that the models are entitled to receive hourly wages,
respectful of their hours, benefits and accounting reports, under
New York Labor Laws. (Few modeling agencies were granted dismissal
of the initial Complaint in the Raske class action, Ford Models
among them, which Arent Fox represented).

After the models amended the Complaint twice to add the Labor Law
claims and filed two related class actions, pre-certification
discovery began in order to determine whether the standards set out
in Article 9 for class action treatment were met (i.e., whether the
representatives and counsel can adequately represent the class,
whether the class action device is superior to individual actions,
whether the class is numerous, whether the named representatives'
claims are typical of those in the proposed class, whether the
class device is superior to the alternative (individually filed
cases, each processed on its own merits). Before Shanklin, the
relatively few class certifications granted involved consumer-type
class actions (e.g., challenging equipment leases deductions or
telephone charges, for unfulfilled promises in solicitation
materials, or waitstaff claims for gratuities). Many cases were
therefore filed in federal court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 as a result
to end-run this failure of state courts to confer class action
status.
The Decision

The Court focused on mainly three statutory features – typicality
(namely, whether the claims remaining presented common issues to
all of the models about the agencies' respective degree of
pervasive control over models and their deduction of alleged
illegal expenses); adequacy of representation (whether the firm
representing the models were able to and capable of preparing the
case, a factor as to which the defending modeling agencies voiced
no dispute), and superiority (whether the use of the class action
device was far superior than were hundreds of models to file
individual actions).

The agency defendants did not dispute the numerosity requirement
and Defendant Next Management lost the argument that the class
action device was not superior to the Commissioner of Labor
prosecuting the claims. The court decided that since the facts
concerning the breaches of contract (alleged unauthorized uses of
models' photos) were so individualized as to each model, contract
terms, and particularly the damages, it could not grant class
status as to those claims.

As for the Labor Law claims, the Court granted class action
certification finding all of the statutory prongs were met with the
result that models under contract with Wilhelmina Models,
Wilhelmina International Ltd., and Next Management LLC,
respectively, since October 24, 2007 (13 years), represent the
models against the three agency classes on the Labor Law Claims.
The Takeaways

Before Shanklin, class certifications have been almost exclusively
in consumer fraud area (e.g., challenging minuscule print
containing waivers of rights under a lease or obscure telephone
charges). Shanklin represents a departure from those cases and is
likely to have repercussions beyond the immediate class action
ruling.

First, if a jury were to find that the modeling agencies exercised
such a degree of control and supervision over hundreds of models in
the class, including the manner, type and location of model shoots,
vacation schedules and medical appointments such that they were
agency employees, then 13 years of potential damages plus
attorneys' fees under the Labor Law could be very large. This
suggests that other service industries which employ independent
contractors and retain such control may also be affected.

Second, Shanklin has practical consequences. How modeling agencies
negotiate contracts with models, their contract renewals, and
reuses of their photoshoots, even the information regarding their
compensation may change, possibly by including additional notice or
sign-offs provisions in model contracts or business procedures to
protect models and the agency from further litigation. It is also
clear that waivers of the right to bring class actions sanctioned
recently by the United States Supreme Court are likely to become
standard if they have not already. Finally, Shanklin suggests that
agencies and other service providers consider requiring independent
contractors to acknowledge and waive their status as employees at
the time they contract or renew their contracts, again to avoid
further litigation.

Third, New York state courts are evincing an affinity for and
greater acceptance of a wider variety of class actions than ever
before in this post-COVID-19 era. [GN]

WILLIS TOWERS: Halper Sadeh Announces Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLP, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a shareholder class action lawsuit against Willis Towers
Watson Public Limited Company (NASDAQ: WLTW) in connection with the
proposed merger between Willis Towers and Aon plc. The lawsuit
seeks damages and/or equitable relief on behalf of Willis Towers
shareholders under the federal securities laws.

If you are a Willis Towers shareholder and would like to join the
action or discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
Willis Towers Class Action or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary
Halper, free of charge, at (212) 763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com
or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued a materially misleading
proxy statement recommending that Willis Towers shareholders vote
in favor of the proposed merger between Willis Towers and Aon.
According to the complaint, the proxy statement contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning, among other
things, Willis Towers', Aon's, and the combined company's financial
projections and the analyses performed by Willis Towers' financial
advisor.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you would like to join the action or discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit
https://halpersadeh.com/actions/willis-towers-watson-public-limited-company-wltw-stock-merger-aon-plc/
or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free of charge, at (212)
763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE OR YOU MAY REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT.

Halper Sadeh LLP represents investors all over the world who have
fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our
attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms
and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded
investors.

Contact Information:

       Halper Sadeh LLP
       Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
       Zachary Halper, Esq.
       Tel: (212) 763-0060
       E-mail: sadeh@halpersadeh.com
       Web site: zhalper@halpersadeh.com
       https://www.halpersadeh.com
[GN]

WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Sells Defective Supplements, Seiger Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Seiger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION, LLC d/b/a NUTRABOLT, Case No.
6:20-cv-06374 (W.D.N.Y., June 7, 2020), is brought against
Nutrabolt for selling defective dietary supplement products, Xtend
BCAA1, through its Scivation brand, which purports to "Support
Muscle Growth," "Support Recovery," "support muscle recovery and
growth," and support "muscle growth and repair."

But actually, based on independent, peer-reviewed research, BCAA
supplements decrease muscle protein synthesis and are wholly
incapable of building muscle on their own, according to the
complaint. Dr. Robert Wolfe, a renowned and highly-respected
authority in the area of amino acid metabolism, concludes that
consumption of BCAA supplements actually negatively impacts muscle
protein synthesis due to lack of all essential amino acids ("EAA"),
which causes EAAs stored in the muscle to be catabolized, thereby
perpetuating a catabolic state of muscle protein breakdown.

To build muscle, the body must have an abundant availability of all
EAAs, which must be consumed through the diet. Anything less than a
full panel of EAAs will grind any increase in muscle protein
synthesis to a halt due to lack of sufficient raw materials with
which the body can use to build muscle mass.

Xtend BCAA contains only three of the nine EAAs and, therefore, it
cannot, in fact, build muscle, the Plaintiff alleges. As such, the
Plaintiff contends, Nutrabolt's claims that the Products "Support
Muscle Growth," "Support Recovery," "support muscle recovery and
growth," and support "muscle growth and repair" are false and
misleading based on peer-reviewed scientific data. In fact, the
Products negatively impact protein synthesis, thereby, leaving the
Plaintiff and Class members in a worse position than if not taking
the product at all, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Mr. Seiger purchased containers of the Scivation-branded
Xtend BCAA and Xtend BCAA products for approximately $30.00.

Nutrabolt is engaged in the manufacturing, processing, packaging,
and distribution of Xtend BCAA products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
                 aobergfell@bursor.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***